Meat consumption vs Libertarianism

[SeanBissell]

Maybe a brain is just a more complex way of channeling consciousness. But plants are said to have potential brains in their root structure. They have similar neuron firing abilities and roots are a complex structure. 

 

And walking on grass doesn't kill it right? Walking on baby chicks would most likely kill them. 

[steve_]

Their roots may communicate with the leaves and whatnot, but I think it's a reasonable assumption that plants do not feel as we, or animals do.

 

You're right in that walking on grass doesn't kill it but assuming plants feel as we do, they would have to be presumed to be in agony, no? Surely you would have to call causing something to feel that much pain to something immoral?

[King David]

The problem is Statism, not "meat".  I've learned from research that the healthiest societies eat (ate) lots of grass fed / wild animals and/ or seafood... and not just the flesh, but organs, bone marrow, blood, etc. (which is the most nutritious).  The healthiest societies consider animal fat sacred....   Fat equals survival (natural fat).   Grains (carbs (ie sugar) / anti-nutrients, etc.), processed fats (canola), and other processed food, is slave food.  Hell, it's not even "food" by definition.  It's only food-like and it's designed to make us fat and sick so they can profit off of us.   Our brains evolved due to high amounts of omega 3 fatty acids and other nutrients that came from.. wait for it... animals!   See Weston A. Price foundation information. See "Primal Body, Primal Mind" by Nora Gedgaudas.   See this link for the truth about veganism:  http://www.beyondveg.com/

I hole heartedly agree with this, fat is sacred I would concur

[steve_]

I hole heartedly agree with this, fat is sacred I would concur

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZYSDw4Pbts

[SeanBissell]

I agree that fat is important. However too much can be problematic on many levels. 

 

High circulating free fatty acids are very linked to type 2 diabetes. 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028371

 

 

 

Elevated FFA concentrations are linked with the onset of peripheral and hepatic insulin resistance... a reduction in elevated plasma FFA should be an important therapeutic target in obesity and type 2 diabetes.

 

 

High circulating free fatty acids can block glucose metabolism. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randle_cycle

 

 

 

The Randle cycle is a metabolic process involving the competition of glucose and fatty acids for substrates.^[1] It is theorized to play a role in explaining type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance

 

Relying on fat as your primary metabolic fuel can reduce your heart function 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion

 

 

 

So in addition to lower ATP synthesis due to fatty acid oxidation, ATP synthesis is impaired by poor calcium signaling as well, causing cardiac problems for diabetics

 

Relying on fat as your primary metabolic fuel can damage your mitochondria.

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/6/1412.full

 

 

 

We propose that accumulation of fatty acids inside mitochondria might lead to increased production of lipid peroxides and damage to mitochondria.

High fat meals can contribute to higher levels of circulating endotoxin. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22210577

 

 

 

These studies have highlighted that exposure to a high-fat meal elevates circulating endotoxin irrespective of metabolic state

[King David]

LOL, that kid is unreal.  Them are the type of kids that make me question the NAP.  He's a dominant male Honey Boo Boo.

 

In regards to my fat comment, yes of course too much fat is bad for you.  However that is simply in regards to ingestion and taste.  My own practice includes daily oiling (or fatting) of my hide.

 

Fat and heat, like the Jews used to do with the Ark of the Covenant, or fat and sunlight as I like to do is THE essential ingredient to maintain the integrity of your skin, which I would argue is the most important organ of your body.

 

This BS about Pro-Active, soap, tea tree and other cutting agents to fix or promote your skin can be easily disproven by the 30 000 some years of human history where oil was revered and liberally applied all over the body.

 

That is all well and anecdotal, but if you actually look biologically at living cells it is of the highest order of functions to create fats to store chemical energy and are even involved in maintaining cellular integrity.  You could say that fat is the mechanism by which life reduces entropic decay...in general.  If that is not sacred I don't know what is

 

OMG, Katy Perry lied to us!

 

King David

[SeanBissell]

I agree, fat is super important, especially saturated fat.

 

That being said, it's really hard for your body to make fat from other sources, and it doesn't happen extremely often. It appears that keeping oxidative metabolism is more important.

 

Do you not use soap when showering?

[King David]

Ya  I could see that, which is why it is wise to supplement your hide with all the oil you can muster.  Like I said, I think that the heat is part of the equation.  Read the Leviticus Law for offerings to the Lord, there are detailed instructions there on how to procure the fat from the sacrifice as well as the protocol on how to perform the offering.  Some variations on the theme that would play out something like a fat sauna.  I always find the details of bible absolutely astounding.  50 pages about sacrificial laws repeating the same thing about different animals but 600 years living in accordance with the lord gets a passing mention, then he gives up the ghost and that was that.

 

"The fat is for the lord"

 

Another part of the equation that nobody seems to acknowledge that you touch on is oxidation.  Oxidation is what other than electricity?  The same electricity that is associated with the inner workings of the sun and the earth. The same that is the sum of your entire consciousness, thereby your everything, and the same that dissipates energy at a rate quicker than any other of the predominant universal forces.  Electricity is associated with crystals and facilitates the majority of entropic loss on planet earth.  Oxygen destroys everything that it comes into contact with yet it powers the coppertop batteries that we refer to as human life.  Plants build electric charges through photoelectric absorption and use it to power potential actions that regulate their photo synthesis.  Bees and animals alike navigate with magnetic fields and sense potentials, which naturally represent a vital portion of the ecosystem.

 

Human did not invent electricity, we simply observed it and put it to use, albeit much later in time than bees and animals yet we find a way to aggrandize our achievement anyways.

 

Electricity seems to me to be the currency of life, and my speculation is that it is the fat that maintains cellular permeability that allows the ion exchange that facilitates oxidation. Cations are a large molecule and need space to move, a healthy cell is a fatty cell. 

 

The bible represents to me the knowledge that can only be attained through a period of trial and error that is on the magnitude of sedimentary and evolutionary processes.  In contrast science is by definition a controlled micro observation of localized phenomenon.  The mechanics of the universe cannot be appreciated in that manner.  I mean if after 300 years of good science all we can come up with is the Higgs Boson? (which still does not explain gravity anyways) I would naturally start looking somewhere else.  Remember, science also gave us "The Greenhouse Effect".

 

A bit off topic but I do enjoy this subject.

 

As for showering with soap it is rare.  I usually take and Epsom salt bath with essential oils thrown in.  Who can afford to waste good oil?

 

King David

[aeonicentity]

the NAP merely applies to the scope of things which are Sentient because anything else would be an unsustainable abstraction. Pain isn't a good measure, because Pain is subjective. some people find some things painful, and some things not. I hit my bro friends once in a while, i'm not violating the NAP. Some people find honesty painful (physically!) does that mean I should be dishonoest to avoid breaking the NAP? NO! Pain is NOT the measure of the aplication of the NAP. Only Sentience is a good line to draw.

 

Your animals aren't sentient. There might be a few who are arguably so: Dolphins, possibly . I don't promote eating these animals because of that very reason. I mean, you can walk up to wild cow, and spear the damn thing with a stone spear and kill it. They're that dumb. chickens will WATCH while you murder their buddies, and keep on living like it never happened tomorrow. Pigs will eat eachother's tails untill they bleed, which is why we clip and crimp them.Some fish are so dumb, they'll snuggle your ankles.

 

They have no rational actors. They lack sentience of any concience. They WILL eat your flesh if they're so inclined. You can feed them their entire lives and they'll still consume you as a final meal. They cannot sympathize with you  (No matter how much you pretend they do when you're lonely) and they do not create concious societies of reason and thought.

 

When they do, THEN we can talk about the NAP appling to them.

[King David]

the NAP merely applies to the scope of things which are Sentient because anything else would be an unsustainable abstraction. Pain isn't a good measure, because Pain is subjective. some people find some things painful, and some things not. I hit my bro friends once in a while, i'm not violating the NAP. Some people find honesty painful (physically!) does that mean I should be dishonoest to avoid breaking the NAP? NO! Pain is NOT the measure of the aplication of the NAP. Only Sentience is a good line to draw.

 

Your animals aren't sentient. There might be a few who are arguably so: Dolphins, possibly . I don't promote eating these animals because of that very reason. I mean, you can walk up to wild cow, and spear the damn thing with a stone spear and kill it. They're that dumb. chickens will WATCH while you murder their buddies, and keep on living like it never happened tomorrow. Pigs will eat eachother's tails untill they bleed, which is why we clip and crimp them.Some fish are so dumb, they'll snuggle your ankles.

 

They have no rational actors. They lack sentience of any concience. They WILL eat your flesh if they're so inclined. You can feed them their entire lives and they'll still consume you as a final meal. They cannot sympathize with you  (No matter how much you pretend they do when you're lonely) and they do not create concious societies of reason and thought.

 

When they do, THEN we can talk about the NAP appling to them.

 

 

I can agree with a lot of what you are saying but want to point out some examples you use for animals are domesticated and bred based on their docile nature.  Wild turkey is avian and have been observed to mourn the loss of their brethren. 

 

I am never quick to dismiss the intelligence of animals as they operate on different levels of existence.  My decision to eat them has more to do with the demands of living than it is on any philosophical basis.

[steve_]

the NAP merely applies to the scope of things which are Sentient because anything else would be an unsustainable abstraction. Pain isn't a good measure, because Pain is subjective. some people find some things painful, and some things not. I hit my bro friends once in a while, i'm not violating the NAP. Some people find honesty painful (physically!) does that mean I should be dishonoest to avoid breaking the NAP? NO! Pain is NOT the measure of the aplication of the NAP. Only Sentience is a good line to draw.

 

Causing pain to someone isn't against the NAP, using aggression towards them is. If you hit someone, you're kinda breaking the NAP.

 

 

Your animals aren't sentient. There might be a few who are arguably so: Dolphins, possibly . I don't promote eating these animals because of that very reason. I mean, you can walk up to wild cow, and spear the damn thing with a stone spear and kill it. They're that dumb. chickens will WATCH while you murder their buddies, and keep on living like it never happened tomorrow. Pigs will eat eachother's tails untill they bleed, which is why we clip and crimp them.Some fish are so dumb, they'll snuggle your ankles.

 

What's your definition of sentient? 

 

 

They have no rational actors. They lack sentience of any concience. They WILL eat your flesh if they're so inclined. You can feed them their entire lives and they'll still consume you as a final meal. They cannot sympathize with you  (No matter how much you pretend they do when you're lonely) and they do not create concious societies of reason and thought.

 

When they do, THEN we can talk about the NAP appling to them.

 

How have you come to the conclusion that they have no rational actors? Same question for conscience...

 

I'm not sure why the NAP has to be reciprocal, especially in the way you're saying. You're saying that if a chicken could eat you, it would, therefore it's okay to slaughter peaceful chickens. That's even worse than saying "I've been attacked by a human before" therefore it's okay to attack peaceful humans because they're of the same species... In the latter example, at least you've been attacked by a human...

[SeanBissell]

Isn't taking a bath with oil thrown in wasting oil?

[aeonicentity]

Causing pain to someone isn't against the NAP, using aggression towards them is. If you hit someone, you're kinda breaking the NAP.

 

 

 

What's your definition of sentient? 

 

 

 

How have you come to the conclusion that they have no rational actors? Same question for conscience...

 

I'm not sure why the NAP has to be reciprocal, especially in the way you're saying. You're saying that if a chicken could eat you, it would, therefore it's okay to slaughter peaceful chickens. That's even worse than saying "I've been attacked by a human before" therefore it's okay to attack peaceful humans because they're of the same species... In the latter example, at least you've been attacked by a human...

By hitting, I mean in the kind of brotherly way men might punch a friend's arm for being a dick, or wrestle with their brother just because.

 

Sentience is defined as the ability to have subjective perceptual experiences. This eliminates the ability to define "feeling pain" as a classification of sentience, since many animals/plants feel 'pain'. The ability to process one's emotions into a higher more abstract concept than "Fire hot, stay away" is the definition of sentience. For examle, using the issue of fire, an animal without sentience wouldn't get any further than "Fire hot, stay away". A being with sentience would process this as "Fire is hot, however, one must accept a degree of danger to enable one to aquire the advantages of hot fire. If one controls fire, it isn't bad, but uncontrolled fire is." This is a great mark of sentience. Sentience implies self-awareness. They not only can internalize the pain, but process that into a greater understanding of self. Interesting tests exist showing self-awareness in dolphins, but most other animals lack this trait.

 

the NAP doesn't have to be reciprocal, but it does have to be with sentient beings. Trying to aply the NAP to things which aren't beings, or aren't sentient doesn't work. We don't apply the NAP to machines, because they're not beings. They're also not sentient (yet). Machines are in many regards more complex than animals. They can percieve harm to themselves (car airbags, coolant leaks, external damage, etc) they some times even respond to these probelms. But we dont' refrain from dismantling a machine or use it's labor because it's not a being, and its not sentient. This also applies to animals and plants. they respond to external threats, they percieve harm, but they aren't sentient (yet) because they cannot process this pain into a higher psychological archetecture.

 

This idea that feeling pain somehow equates to sentience is pervasive throughout psychological literature because its much easier to detect than the complex ability to reason. I think this is an example of lazy scientists, and retarded new-age philosophers that hole up in their ivory towers.

[steve_]

> Sentience is defined as the ability to have subjective perceptual experiences

 

Where? Wikipedia, google define, webster, the oxford dictionary all seem to say that animals are sentient since they can feel and perceive.

 

You seem to suggest that the NAP doesn't apply to things that aren't of a certain intellect, but presumably you would want it extended to the mentally ill/retarded, right? What about children? They'll eventually grow up to be sentient, as you define it, but so could those machines or at least their parts.

 

 

Further more, even if you establish some line where they're too stupid for the NAP to apply to them it strikes me as very weird that when you say that you don't mean that they have no moral responsibility, but instead that we, the people smart enough for the NAP to apply to, don't have to follow it when it comes to them...

[aeonicentity]

> Sentience is defined as the ability to have subjective perceptual experiences

 

Where? Wikipedia, google define, webster, the oxford dictionary all seem to say that animals are sentient since they can feel and perceive.

 

You seem to suggest that the NAP doesn't apply to things that aren't of a certain intellect, but presumably you would want it extended to the mentally ill/retarded, right? What about children? They'll eventually grow up to be sentient, as you define it, but so could those machines or at least their parts.

 

 

Further more, even if you establish some line where they're too stupid for the NAP to apply to them it strikes me as very weird that when you say that you don't mean that they have no moral responsibility, but instead that we, the people smart enough for the NAP to apply to, don't have to follow it when it comes to them...

From wikipidia "In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".^[1] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity,intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts that mean something or are "about" something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which is otherwise commonly used to collectively describe sentience plus other characteristics of the mind."

 

Even mentaly retarted humans posess capacity to reason or express complex thought (greater than that of an animal). This being said, Intelegence isn't what I"m talking about, the ability to posess non-instinctual empathy, the ability to supress instinct in favor of reason, these are prequisites. And simply because some people aren't utilizing their sentience doesn't mean they aren't capable of it, and therefore covered under the NAP

 

Fundamentally what matters is the potential for sentience, which is why children (who may not be sentient at the moment, its hard to tell since they can't talk at birth) are protected by the NAP.

 

We HAVE to draw this distinction, becuse otherwise any number of behaviors which we don't consider unethical (and reasonably so) become problematic. After all, we can't make non-agression pacts with dogs. Nor can a Dog 'work' for you because he can't voulenterally accept the job. Even if he did, you couldn't morally enforce a contract with the thing because its too dumb to understand what it agreed to in the first place. Because of this you couldn't own pets of any variety, since pet ownernship would be the moral equivallent of slavery. If you think the NAP extends to animals, you have to go ALL THE WAY. Food would just be the beginning of this madness.

 

Perhaps consiousness is a better defining line of the NAP, and I"m willing to agree that perhaps the line I draw is the wrong one (perhaps simply being human is the best line to draw, although blob creatures from the planet Zork might disagree), but a line must be drawn to divide humans from animals, because otherwise, the NAP simply becomes a system in which you can't do anything, because everything has rights.

[steve_]

> Fundamentally what matters is the potential for sentience, which is why children (who may not be sentient at the moment, its hard to tell since they can't talk at birth) are protected by the NAP.

 

I brought up children only because of the machine comparison.

 

> We HAVE to draw this distinction, becuse otherwise any number of behaviors which we don't consider unethical (and reasonably so) become problematic.

 

This is what everyone who rejects deontological ethics and the NAP says.

 

> After all, we can't make non-agression pacts with dogs.

You said it didn't need to be reciprocal?  

> but a line must be drawn to divide humans from animals, because otherwise, the NAP simply becomes a system in which you can't do anything, because everything has rights.

 

pigs having rights gets in the way of BACON, so it cannot be!

[aeonicentity]

way to ignore the point Steve.

 

If everything has rights, then you'll have to get rid of your clothes, your posessions (maybe your computer doesn't wan to be owned, who knows?) Your pets, and anything else. Oh, and good luck eating, because there's really not a big distinction between plants and animals philosophically...

[King David]

is

Isn't taking a bath with oil thrown in wasting oil?

 

 

Maybe a little, but some will enter into the dermis layer along with the warm water.  Regardless, I was referring to how soap will rinse away my man oil and the emu oil that I condition with.  Those two are more valuable and plentiful than the two or three drops of peppermint for my bath that will mostly go down the drain.  By the end of the bath I can barely sense the peppermint and assume it bleeds away to vapour and thereby will be introduced into my lungs as well.  I will bathe every other day or third day so it is pretty hard to consider myself a diva of waste by conventional metrics.

 

My use of oil and flesh for sustenance is bred from my practice of living, my moral conflict with ending a life whether plant, animal, sentient or otherwise for my personal utilities I would consider as part of the paradoxical nature of intelligence.  I try to limit my waste and do not dismiss the action lightly, I fully realize that if I were to spend time with the pig from which my bacon came I would  have developed an emotional attachment to it. That is however the cycle of life and could slay the beast myself if it were demanded of me.  I eat pig, I shit pig, pig shit grows truffles which nourish the offspring of said pig in a perfect world.  If the cycle is broken the piglets no longer get to eat delicious truffles and I not longer get to eat delicious pig (bad example considering my handle, good example in terms of mmmm).  Nobody gets out of life alive, when my time comes it will be my turn to give back to nature.

 

King David

[steve_]

way to ignore the point Steve.

 

If everything has rights, then you'll have to get rid of your clothes, your posessions (maybe your computer doesn't wan to be owned, who knows?) Your pets, and anything else. Oh, and good luck eating, because there's really not a big distinction between plants and animals philosophically...

 

Way to ignore all of my points :S

 

Then perhaps the NAP is silly and impractical?

I've gone over the difference between animals and plants with SeanBissell earlier in the thread, what do you disagree with?

[aeonicentity]

the NAP is not silly and impractical because it only applies to people. what I disagree with is that you equate living and having a brain to reason. Both plants and animals respond to external stimuli. They both will react when damaged, or when violent behavior is foisted upon them. Animals differ from plants in WHY they respond to these stimuli, but that doesn't mean they don't 'feel' it. And if we're going to be expanding the definition of sentience to "the ability to 'feel' pain" then we pretty much have to extend it to all things which respond to external stimulii.

[steve_]

the NAP is not silly and impractical because it only applies to people. 

 

Because otherwise: kaboom.

 

 

what I disagree with is that you equate living and having a brain to reason. 

 

Do you mean 'to be able to reason'? You don't believe animals can reason?

 

 

Both plants and animals respond to external stimuli. They both will react when damaged, or when violent behavior is foisted upon them. Animals differ from plants in WHY they respond to these stimuli, but that doesn't mean they don't 'feel' it. 

 

 

So it doesn't matter that they lack the necessary biological equipment to feel pain?

 

 

And if we're going to be expanding the definition of sentience to "the ability to 'feel' pain" then we pretty much have to extend it to all things which respond to external stimulii.

 

It's not possible to respond to external stimuli without feeling pain?

[Ray H.]

Because otherwise: kaboom.

 

Repeating variations of this is not an argument.

 

Here's my take. Humans are unique, if not in possessing certain characteristics, such as abstract reasoning and pattern recognition, then in the degree to which those traits are potentially expressed. There are several culminations of these traits: free will, language, etc. Relevant to this discussion, though, is the sense of doom that humans are capable of. To anticipate pain or sorrow is often worse than the actual experience of those things. I am unaware of any evidence that non-human animals (particularly livestock) experience foreboding. If there is such, enlighten me. If there is not, then it follows that non-human animals do not suffer in this way as they proceed to slaughter. They simply do not know what is about to happen to them. The suffering that they do experience (i.e. pain and stress due to living conditions and treatment) are serious issues that can and should be eliminated. I'm in full support of giving animals the space and care they require to be content, but, until proven otherwise, I will not project human qualities onto them. If a non-human animal has been raised without pain and stress, I see no reason to mourn it's death or demonize those who profit from it.

 

As for children and mentally-challenged people, they are humans. Their genetic makeup allows for the potential to experience the kind of suffering I'm talking about. Healthy children will clearly develop into such beings. As for the mentally-challenged, the genetic potential is there, and many of them are able to express suffering of this kind. For those that cannot express themselves, this is no indication that they cannot experience suffering, and so we should treat them as if they do. Once again, to the extent that non-humans lack the potential to experience anticipatory suffering, they need not be treated as if they do.

[SeanBissell]

In regards to animal "foreboding", ever see an abused dog or cat? They seem to have the ability to "forebode."

[Ray H.]

In regards to animal "foreboding", ever see an abused dog or cat? They seem to have the ability to "forebode."

 

Only because they've already been abused. They're expecting more of the same. This is in stark contrast to livestock that only go through the slaughter process once. They don't build up knowledge about it.

[SeanBissell]

Totally agreed there

[steve_]

Ray, I'm not sure why something that isn't as smart as you doesn't have self-ownership or otherwise isn't deserving of slaughter. If I'm honest you seem to be drawing an arbitrary line so you can eat bacon free of guilt of needlessly murdering something.

[SeanBissell]

Is there any truly guilt free way to eat? Life feeds on life. You either eat an animal that ate a plant, or you eat a plant that ate an animal.

[Ray H.]

Ray, I'm not sure why something that isn't as smart as you doesn't have self-ownership or otherwise isn't deserving of slaughter. If I'm honest you seem to be drawing an arbitrary line so you can eat bacon free of guilt of needlessly murdering something.

 

But you're not being honest. You're claiming that there is no moral difference between humans and non-humans. You've projected human traits onto animals, and you're unwilling to face that they are not rational, therefore not responsible for their actions, and therefore incapable of ownership of any kind. That isn't an arbitrary line. That is the opposite of an arbitrary line. It is a reasoned line. It might be wrong, but you haven't shown it to be by accusing me of murder. Furthermore, I didn't draw the line to erase guilt. You or someone else in this thread asked where the line was drawn, so I drew it and explained it. Instead of addressing the logic, you attacked me. Now, be honest.

[steve_]

You've projected human traits onto animals, and you're unwilling to face that they are not rational, therefore not responsible for their actions, and therefore incapable of ownership of any kind.

 

They are rational though, just not to the extent that we are. Why does that make them incapable of ownership of any kind and therefore a-okay for us to do to as we please?

 

They're as responsible for their actions as we are. It would just be silly to hold them to the same standards as we would a human because they aren't human.

 

That isn't an arbitrary line. That is the opposite of an arbitrary line. It is a reasoned line.

 

But your reasons for drawing the line are arbitrary. You like bacon, therefore have come up with a reason as to why pigs don't deserve freedom as we do.

 

It might be wrong, but you haven't shown it to be by accusing me of murder.

 

I don't think there is a right and a wrong, I think I can only show it to be arbitrary and hopefully appeal to people who are against doing things that way.

 

Furthermore, I didn't draw the line to erase guilt. You or someone else in this thread asked where the line was drawn, so I drew it and explained it. Instead of addressing the logic, you attacked me. Now, be honest.

 

I did address the logic, I said it was an arbitrarily drawn line, which I still think is drawn to absolve you of moral responsibility. If you're a vegan then I'll gladly eat my words without question, but I really really doubt that you are.

[Ray H.]

They are rational though, just not to the extent that we are. Why does that make them incapable of ownership of any kind and therefore a-okay for us to do to as we please?

 

They're as responsible for their actions as we are. It would just be silly to hold them to the same standards as we would a human because they aren't human.

 

 

But your reasons for drawing the line are arbitrary. You like bacon, therefore have come up with a reason as to why pigs don't deserve freedom as we do.

 

 

I don't think there is a right and a wrong, I think I can only show it to be arbitrary and hopefully appeal to people who are against doing things that way.

 

 

I did address the logic, I said it was an arbitrarily drawn line, which I still think is drawn to absolve you of moral responsibility. If you're a vegan then I'll gladly eat my words without question, but I really really doubt that you are.

 

Here's what we should do. You go look up the word arbitrary while I go hold my dog as responsible for the hair she sheds on the couch as I would hold a roommate for spilling food on it (since animals are "as responsible for their actions as we are").

 

Until you offer an actual argument, instead of adjectives, I'll not waste my time with this.

[Guest Exceptionalist]

Here's what we should do. You go look up the word arbitrary while I go hold my dog as responsible for the hair she sheds on the couch as I would hold a roommate for spilling food on it (since animals are "as responsible for their actions as we are").

 

Until you offer an actual argument, instead of adjectives, I'll not waste my time with this.

 

You are right, it would be silly to hold the animals to the same moral standards as humans, because they are incapable of selfownership and being a moral entity.

 

 

 But your reasons for drawing the line are arbitrary. You like bacon, therefore have come up with a reason as to why pigs don't deserve freedom as we do.

 

 

You like animals and therefore come up with a "reason" why moral principles should apply to animal. You are biased too. Feelings don't qualify for a moral entity because to feel is not the same as to be capable of rational thinking and acting. You are a part of the foodchain, so they are, problem solved.

[steve_]

Here's what we should do. You go look up the word arbitrary while I go hold my dog as responsible for the hair she sheds on the couch as I would hold a roommate for spilling food on it (since animals are "as responsible for their actions as we are").

 

Until you offer an actual argument, instead of adjectives, I'll not waste my time with this.

 

adjective

 

[*]

1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
 
 

 

If I say murder is moral if you dance around on one foot for 3 minutes, what would you call that?

 

 

while I go hold my dog as responsible for the hair she sheds on the couch as I would hold a roommate for spilling food on it (since animals are "as responsible for their actions as we are").

 

... Why aren't animals as responsible for their actions as we are?

 

Also you're conveniently leaving out the second part "They're as responsible for their actions as we are. It would just be silly to hold them to the same standards as we would a human because they aren't human." ?

[RestoringGuy]

the NAP doesn't have to be reciprocal, but it does have to be with sentient beings. Trying to aply the NAP to things which aren't beings, or aren't sentient doesn't work. We don't apply the NAP to machines, because they're not beings. They're also not sentient (yet). Machines are in many regards more complex than animals. They can percieve harm to themselves (car airbags, coolant leaks, external damage, etc) they some times even respond to these probelms. But we dont' refrain from dismantling a machine or use it's labor because it's not a being, and its not sentient. This also applies to animals and plants. they respond to external threats, they percieve harm, but they aren't sentient (yet) because they cannot process this pain into a higher psychological archetecture.

 

This idea that feeling pain somehow equates to sentience is pervasive throughout psychological literature because its much easier to detect than the complex ability to reason. I think this is an example of lazy scientists, and retarded new-age philosophers that hole up in their ivory towers.

This makes sense about ability to reason being sometimes hard to detect, but the non-sentience does not count for much with NAP.  Building a machine that is harmless is not violation of NAP.  Building a machine that is harmless for 200 years and then arms itself to blow up people, well the sentience that built it is long gone.   There is no NAP violation for 200 years because of harmlessness, and no NAP violation after because there is no existing sentience?  The only way around this is to extend the idea of "harm" and "aggression" to events beyond your own lifespan.

 

If extension is made, a chimpanzee could be well-reasonable in 1000 years, we would murder its great^25 grandma.  It is just as planting a landmine that only kills somebody who is not even born yet.  Non-extended NAP would say nobody is responsible for any of this.

[PatrickC]

the NAP doesn't have to be reciprocal, but it does have to be with sentient beings.

Certainly found some of your thoughts on this topic in this thread very interesting aeon. I was curious mind, regarding the above statement. It seems to me that the weakness of the NAP position lies within the broader implications this axiom has on entire lifeforms. Which is why some people are arguing that the NAP applies to animals as well as humans. Reciprocity seems to be the linch pin philosophically, rather than sentience. This is why I defer to better positions than the NAP, such as UPB, which deals with this topic rather well.

 

However, if you think sentience is the key component, I'd be interested to hear why you think it is better than reciprocity.

[aeonicentity]

Because otherwise: kaboom.

 

 

 

Do you mean 'to be able to reason'? You don't believe animals can reason?

 

 

 

 

So it doesn't matter that they lack the necessary biological equipment to feel pain?

 

 

 

It's not possible to respond to external stimuli without feeling pain?

 Steve, just because an argument only applies to a narrow domain of things, as long as the domain is valid and universal, the argument is valid. Tangent is only defined from -pi/2 to pi/2, that doesn't mean tangent is an invalid mathematical theorem. the NAP only applies to humans, do you feel that is an unreasonable domain? I think its a valid, and nessessary one. When we discover other sentient species with reasoning capacities similar to humans, we may need to rethink our philosophy to incorperate them. Untill then, your problem is invalid.

 

Animals cannot reason. When an animals philosophise, we can talk about this again.

 

Anything with a feedback loop 'feels pain'.

 

It is possible to react to external stimulii without feeling pain. However, not all external stimulii are painfull.

Certainly found some of your thoughts on this topic in this thread very interesting aeon. I was curious mind, regarding the above statement. It seems to me that the weakness of the NAP position lies within the broader implications this axiom has on entire lifeforms. Which is why some people are arguing that the NAP applies to animals as well as humans. Reciprocity seems to be the linch pin philosophically, rather than sentience. This is why I defer to better positions than the NAP, such as UPB, which deals with this topic rather well.

 

However, if you think sentience is the key component, I'd be interested to hear why you think it is better than reciprocity.

I think that fundamentally, NAP can only apply to things which can understand the NAP. Otherwise, you're forcing your moral structure on beings which do not, and cannot understand the NAP. While it is admirable to try and live principals related to the NAP towards beings which are incapable of understanding the NAP (for example, animals), it isn't neccesary under the NAP.

 

That being said, people who perform violence against animals, eat excessive meat, and abuse animals psychologically, tend to violate the NAP against humans as well. Violent behavior towards plants and animals should be viewed as suspect unless there are good reasons (i.e. harvesting for food, self defense, spaying an neutering animals for population control).

 

Without this kind of exception, behaviors which are reasonable, rational, and neccessary couldn't be right. The kinds of behaviors I think the author wouldn't even like to give up, including but not limited to:

 

Use of animals for capital labor

Ownership of pets.

Spaying and neutering

Use of animals as physical or psychological aide

Use of animals for food, even in times of famine

Management of land (private or public) by controlling animal populations