Science is agnostic with regard to hypotheses lacking conclusive evidence.

Yeah, no, I totally agree that empirically we have no evidence that there are any rational beings in addition to humans, and would not insist there necessarily are any. However, I think my intuition is that given the shear scale of the universe even as we have discovered it so far, it is plausible to think that (it is possible) there are non-human beings - aliens, just to call a spade a spade - who exhibit and are capable of rational thought. — Mentalusion

I think it safe to assume that life occurs anywhere it can occur - and in the universe there are other places it can occur. The obstacles to the development of intelligent life however, may be more than we imagine. And in addition, the obstacles to intelligent life persisting for any significant length of time may again be quite onerous. Homo sapiens may be very unusual creatures indeed!

If you agree, then would we have to assume that the only way they could possess morality is if they developed through biological evolutionary processes similar to those humans undergo? If we don't assume that, then it would seem morality could be untethered from biological development in some cases. — Mentalusion

I imagine it's possible for biological organisms to invent intelligent machines that outlive their creators, and continue to develop. How else can one explain the Bootes void? That so, the question arises whether the machine intelligence would understand morality, but be essentially amoral - if they do not live, or die, or feel pain? Or, is morality and rationality ultimately reconcilable as some list of behavioral instructions? The literature would seem to say 'no' - because the is and the ought are fundamentally distinct realms. But while that may be true of intelligent machines, it's not true of human beings imbued with a moral sense by evolution.

If you disagree that it is possible there are non-human rational being in the universe, I'm still curious whether you think a conventional form of morality is impossible. That is, suppose we do develop certain moral intuitions as the result of our evolution and develop rules related to those intuitions that form the framework of a moral system. If we agreed to change the rules so that they were no longer consistent with our intuitions but based on rational judgments instead (about what is best, most expedient, whatever), is it unfair to still call that new set of rules a moral system? If it's not unfair to say that, then how is that conventional system related to the supposed evolutionary developments of our moral psychology? — Mentalusion

Very interesting and perceptive question to which I have definite answer. The short answer is that morality is a form of truth. The longer answer begins with imagining the structure of DNA forming in the primordial oceans. In its very structure, DNA had to be correct to the environment to survive and reproduce. It had to persist in relation to heat, light, various forms of radition, and the chemical composition of its environment. Further, it had to unzip down the middle to attract chemicals from the environment to reproduce. Thus, it's very structure is true to the reality of the environment. Jumping forward in time, consider how organisms have to be physiologically correct to reality to survive - most basically, internalizing energy and excreting waste, regulating temperature, and so on. Then consider animal behavior - how, for instance, a bird builds a nest before it lays eggs. It doesn't know and plan ahead. That behavior is ingrained by the function or die algorithm of evolution - i.e. those who were not correct to this aspect of reality are extinct.

In this context, we consider human evolution, and morality as a sense ingrained into the human organism by the necessity of tribal life - and we discover that morality is fundamentally a truth relation to reality. Thus, morality is a form of truth - where truth is a valid relation to reality, necessary to survival. Consequently, in answer to your question: insofar as those rational judgments were indeed rational, it wouldn't be changing anything; merely clarifying!

For example, it is a fact we do not acknowledge - that humankind is a single species, all occupying the same planet. Thus racial prejudice and xenophobia may be intuitive, but are an intuition based on a false conception of reality. If in order to be rational one accepts the facts into the calculus of moral reason, it makes no sense to be racist. It's morally wrong to the fact that humankind is a single species, all occupying the same planet.

This is where it gets interesting - because, consider the accused lying to the court, and assume his lies are believed. The calculus of moral reason inherent to the legal process works to an unjust end, because the information upon which the process functions is false. Even children understand this instinctively - that a false conception of reality perverts the calculus of moral reason, and they learn to lie quite early on as a natural part of the developmental process, to skew the world in their favor.

So you think it would be impossible for rational creatures, whether human or not, to agree to a system of moral codes? Part of the question being whether it's possible some rational beings don't necessarily come about as a result of evolutionary forces or go through tribalism in the course of their social development. If it's possible there are such beings, then would they be prevented from having a moral system based on how you've conceived it here? Is that the best way to frame a concept of morality, such that it necessarily excludes some agents who intuition might suggest seem to be capable of acting morally? — Mentalusion

I have explored the idea of a Nietzschian - amoral species, and cannot imagine that species could progress very far beyond a state of nature. Putting aside the infinite diversity of nature, think upon the difference between a creature that cares for its young, and one that lays eggs and walks away. The amoral species is an egg layer who walks away. It doesn't care for its young, it doesn't form a society, doesn't develop technology - so it doesn't progress beyond a state of nature.

Caring for the young is necessary to the developmental process - inherent to higher intelligence. The more complex the creature, the longer the dependency upon the mother and the tribe. This requires a self-sacrificial moral behavior in adults - broadly called altruism. The developmental potential of an organism that must be hardwired to survive from the moment the egg cracks open is quite limited.

In short, I believe morality is inherent to intelligence, and that you can't have an amoral rational creature. However, there's a saying among biologists - 'evolution is smarter than you are.' And we have only the one example, of life on earth, and the one example of a rationally intelligent creature, homo sapiens, to work with. So, I suppose my question to you would be - what kind of rational agent to do imagine is excluded by this concept of morality?

Briefly, he seems to state that morality is, at last, an emerged social institution, not a result of a human design, but a result of non-intentional consequences of human action. It means that the evolution of societies is somehow similar in principles to biological evolutionary theories, which is guided by some sort of natural selection. Those societies that came up to developed emerged but bad institutions just have failed, resting to our time those that, we could say, were approved in the test of time and adapted to general circumstances. Thus, the rules of morality are not the conclusions of our reason. What do you think? Is this evolutionary approach reasonable to the studies of social sciences? — F.C.F.V.

Morality is fundamentally a sense - ingrained into the organism by evolution in a tribal social context. It's promoted as an evolutionary advantage - to the individual within the tribe, and to the tribal group overall.

Society is effectively, the joining together of hunter-gatherer tribal groups, and that wasn't easy. The obstacle is inherent to the social hierarchy of hunter-gatherer tribes - ruled by an alpha male with one or two lieutenants, monopolizing food and mating opportunities within the tribe. Thus, any two such tribes would have great difficulty joining together to form a society, because any disagreement would immediately split the society into its tribal parts.

This obstacle was overcome with an explicit moral code - justified with reference to God. So, I'd have to disagree with Hayeck to some extent; not because morality is not fundamentally an evolutionary quality, but in that, in a state of nature morality is a sense of morality located within individuals and the tribal structure, whereas in multi-tribal society, morality is an expression - an explicit moral code, objective with respect to the individual.

So, unless one believes God inscribed the tablets Moses carried down the mountain - for example, those codes were thought about and designed by human beings - as the basis of societal institutions. However well designed in the first instance, they inevitably become anachronistic over time, and persist as institutional morality - often in quite painful contradiction to attitudes that develop as a result of experience - understood in terms of the innate moral sense, and communicated inter-subjectively.

An example of this is how mass immigration and Islamic terrorism has promoted a far right resurgence in Europe, in contradiction of anti-racist values, made explicit in democratic institutions. Another is increasingly tolerant social attitudes to homosexuality, against hostile values made explicit in religious texts. It's the difference between morality as an innate sense, and morality as an explicit expression of societal values.

they apparently feel compelled to communicate that objection at every juncture. I have never met a vegetarian - I only later discovered was a vegetarian.
— karl stone
I've only just met you, and already you've told me you're a meat-eater. Funny, that. — Herg

In a thread discussing the eating of meat - it's not entirely surprising you know I eat meat. But I didn't start this thread. And I didn't start a thread with a question; and then answer every post telling people what the answer is. The title might have read 'our dominion over animal is unethical' - a statement of position, that would at least have been honest.

It's in that context one has to wonder why: "I have never met a vegetarian - I only later discovered was a vegetarian." I imagine I'm about averagely sympathetic, so I cannot believe that there are people in the world - so incredibly sympathetic, it's for that reason alone they are compelled to moralize to everyone they encounter. Like the question at the top of this thread, I don't believe it's honest.

Now add to that, the fact that nature is red in tooth and claw. In nature, animals eat eachother alive. How can vegetarians possibly accept that fact - when moralizing in the way they do? They don't - they live in some fantasy world, where the lion lays down the lamb - so to speak. Again, it's dishonest.

And this leads to the question of ethics. Ethics is not a simple matter. i.e. farming involves suffering. Suffering is wrong. Therefore farming is unethical. That's false. Ethics is a system of moral values that play out in relation to the real world. So, if the title were 'our dominion over animals is unethical' - that position would have to account for all the relevant and related factors; not least, human sustenance and industry.

There's no attempt to address those factors here - and this is a philosophy forum. It's not a chat forum. My interest here is ethics. The subject matter, is to my mind - a workable example. Only there's no work - there's just some bleeding heart pretense as a claim to moral superiority. It's dishonest, and that is unethical!

Sorry, I'm not a conspiracy nut. — S

Nor am I. I'm a politics nut. Check my facts. David Cameron was a brexiteer who called the referendum, sabotaged the Remain position he then adopted, and lost on purpose for Remain.

I was kind of with you until that nonsense about David Cameron sabotaging the Remain campaign, of which he played a prominent part in promoting, and about Brexit being an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the British people by the government. — S

You neither, huh?

The 2016 referendum was corrupt in every respect. David Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who sabotaged his credibility on key issues with a pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, and with a renegotiation - that could not have been renegotiated overnight or unilaterally, and so only served to publicize a long list of complaints about the EU. Coming back from Brussels, when Cameron touched down on British soil - with his inevitable failure swirling about him, he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain.

Meanwhile, the Leave campaign was farmed out to a shady organization called the Tax Payer's Alliance - a rabid right wing economic policy group. Other, unofficial Leave campaigns sprang up - and used stolen facebook data to design and target false and divisive propaganda.

David Cameron lost on purpose for Remain, in coordination with the main Leave campaign. We can know this because the rhetoric employed by the official Leave campaign, was written by David Cameron in the 2005 and 2010 Conservative Party manifestos. "Take back control of our borders" etc.

The cherry atop this huge shit sundae is that the current Prime Minister was David Cameron's Home Secretary - with responsibility for immigration. She dismantled the border force, allowed 635,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, (five years after Cameron's pledge) then published those figures weeks before the vote. Then, when Cameron lost on purpose for Remain and resigned, she stepped into his shoes - without a vote by anyone.

Brexit is an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the British people by the government; these are the facts - but if you imagine you can interest any MP or media organization in bringing them to light, you'd be wrong. No-one wants to know.

The mature thing to do would be to respond to the post above,
— karl stone

The logical thing to do would be to not invest time in trying to explain such things to those who show no evidence of being capable of ever getting it. Such a procedure is a waste of everybody's time, and accomplishes little more than generating pointless conflict.

A better approach would be to try to identify those who have already decided to move towards a plant based diet, but are new to the subject and need some assistance with their transition. For example, a website with a title something like "How To Become A Vegetarian". — Jake

I have no objection to people who want to be vegetarian making their own decisions. Nor to you creating a website. It's vegetarians who have an objection to my decisions - and they apparently feel compelled to communicate that objection at every juncture. I have never met a vegetarian - I only later discovered was a vegetarian. And when you discuss it in depth, as we have here - I've often found that it's not so much a love of animals, but a dislike of people - coupled with post-material values.

Not eating meat gives them a cheaply purchased sense of moral superiority they cannot help but flaunt; and the reason you don't like me digging down - is that, it puts that moralism at risk. You want me shut and be preached to. Well that's not going to happen. Chatterbears asked a question - he can't even answer himself. He thinks suffering and death are conclusive of unethical behavior - but they're not. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Farming is less cruel than nature - while providing sustenance and industry, that in turn lends value to the land and the environment. All this is part of any question of ethics, and a failure to examine those things - reduces vegetarianism to a misanthropic, weepy moral pretense of the privileged few.

This topic was created to discuss spirituality, enlightenment in particular. The persistence is yours. The derail is yours. The unfriendliness, that's yours too. Time to stop now. — Pattern-chaser

Yes. Admittedly, I am unfriendly toward hocus pocus. I don't like Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam or Judaism. So at least I'm consistent. This is not discriminatory unfriendliness - but an epistemic distinction, between scientifically valid knowledge, and emotionally grabby unfounded assertions - generally made by unscrupulous people to defraud the gullible. It's scam that thrives on friendliness - upon fake sympathy, but is ultimately more cruel, more controlling, more possessive and demanding than the unvarnished truth.

So, I've defined my view of the term enlightenment - but what's yours? A claim to superior understanding and authority that has no practical means of demonstration? And meanwhile, an actually Enlightened body of knowledge - that surrounds with practical miracles, has no authority at all? Instead, it's subject to the religious, political and economic complex - under the rubric of which, all manner of tawdry new age philosophies multiply.

Homeopathy, witches, living on light, healing crystals, guiding angels, mediums, druids, ghost hunters, tarot cards, ouji boards etc, etc - such that if I'm unfriendly, it's that they cynically play on friendliness - on the fact that people are too kind to be as brutally honest as science has to be to be true.

lol yeah. It took me a while... Karl doesn't understand the concept of answering a question. Maybe you can try to ask him in another thread. This is what you may encounter.

Why are animals not worth of moral consideration if we cause them unnecessary suffering?
"Because they aren't on top of the food chain."
Why is the food chain an indicator of how to treat sentient beings?
"Because.... dinner."

If you want to talk about food chains, how about you ask Karl to fight a tiger or bear with what he was naturally born with (hands and feet and teeth). That food chain will get resolved real fast, lol... — chatterbears

I'm going to stop replying to you now (then bitch about you behind your back!) Real mature. The mature thing to do would be to respond to the post above, and explain how not eating meat would be ethical in its effects on other people, animals and the wider environment. There are whole ecosystems and landscapes dependent on grazing animals, not to mention a significant part of the economy. If your only premise is the 'unnecessary suffering of animals' killed for food - then it's not unethical. Indeed, you haven't even established it's unnecessary!

I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I think it is pointless at this point.
— chatterbears

Hey, you figured it out! — Jake

It's pointless if you don't agree!

:lol:

Have fun on another thread. I'm going to stop responding to you now. Ty — chatterbears

Okay, but before I leave you to it - you should really look up the term 'ethics' and consider it as a system of moral values - in relation to the real world. Because even if, eating meat causes suffering, it's not therefore unethical. Claiming it's unethical requires you consider other things, off the top of my head - like the amount of land necessary to feed 7 billion on vegetables alone, and the consequence of using artificial fertilizers if animal dung were not available, like the livelihoods of farmers, and so on and on right down to denying people a right to make their own choices. Your sympathy for animals is but one tiny, and relatively inconsequential factor to be taken into account.

Here's the conversation.

Chatterbears: It is wrong to kill animals and people unnecessarily.
Karl: But animals are not people.
Chatterbears: Why does that matter? They both can feel and suffer.
Karl: Animals are not people, they are dinner.
Chatterbears: Ok. That doesn't answer anything. Why should we cause harm to animals unnecessarily?
Karl: Because animals are not worthy of the same moral consideration.
Chatterbears: Still haven't answered. Why aren't they worthy of the same moral consideration in regards to unnecessary suffering?
Karl: Because animals are not human beings. They are lower on the food chain.

Smh... — chatterbears

No. Here's the conversation:

Chatterbears: Is our dominion over animals unethical?
Karl: No, because, you know...reality!
Chatterbears: It is, it is, it is, it is!
Karl: Why?
Chatterbears: Boo hoo hoo, animals are people too!
Karl: No, they're not!
Chatterbears: Go eat a new born baby!
Karl: I'll just have the lasagne, thanks!

Vegans, not vegetarians. Animals are factory farmed because we eat them. If we stopped eating them, they wouldn't be farmed. If you want to say they would be farmed for clothing (such as a leather), that's a separate issue. But Vegans do not buy any animal products, including leather. So that would go away as well. You talk about bias and prejudice, yet you can't understand simple supply and demand? — chatterbears

Of course I understand such a simplistic concept. I just don't accept the implications you draw from it - nor the assumptions you smuggle into the argument under its rubric.

And black people were bred for slavery in the US. And the vast majority of people owned slaved. And they were not likely to stop doing so. Should that be a reason to continue doing it, because it is a demand and the majority supports it? — chatterbears

But they're people - you concept smuggler you. Animals are not people. They're dinner!

Also, morally, it's quite simple. Veganism is a logically consistent extension of whatever moral system you already have in place for yourself. You cannot be logically consistent without being Vegan. — chatterbears

Well therein may lay your problem - moralism to the exclusion of fact.

For example. A person could give these reasons:

"I eat meat because I like the taste."
"I eat meat because it is convenient to do so."
"I eat meat because animals are not as intelligent as I am."

If we take just those 3 justifications for the action committed, we can apply logically consistency to their position and see if they would still accept it.

"I eat new born babies because I like the taste."
"I am a cannibal because it is convenient to do so."
"I eat new born babies because they are not as intelligent as I am."

If you wouldn't accept the second set of claims, then you are not logically consistent. Since this clearly demonstrates that these reasons are not sufficient justifications to commit an action. — chatterbears

Again, animals are not people.

And you still haven't answered.... I think at this point it is clear you are being either dishonest and/or purposely evasive. I don't know how to raise a child, but I would never condone killing one. You don't need to know anything about raising pigs or dogs, to understand why you would eat one but not the other. And instead of answering my question, of why you would support the killing of pigs but not of dogs, you constantly evade the question. — chatterbears

As you keep raising the same points, I answered the point toward the end of my post. Shame you missed it. I seem to recall establishing the natural pecking order. Animals are not human beings. They are not worthy of the same moral consideration. They are worthy of some moral consideration - regarding unnecessary suffering, but subject to the pecking order as manifest, in this instance, in the food chain.

Bearing in mind that the fate of animals in nature is suffering and death - often quite a horrible death, with another animal tearing them open and eating them alive, farming, by contrast - is relatively humane. Why pigs and not dogs? It's clearly a cultural preference, because some people eat dogs.

It's all very well you saying that it's unnecessary - because humans can live on vegetables alone, but we don't. And that's a natural fact - that given the natural pecking order and the fate of animals in nature - you cannot maintain is unethical without engaging in weepy moralism based on false equivalence.

Ha no it’s not got anything to do with Buddhism it’s about having a conversation that could be interesting without having to put up with interruptions that dilute the content. — Dan84

Feel free to send a PM - and I'll respond or I won't.

What Krishna taught, the teachings of yoga, had nothing to do with religion. They were based on principles of the activities of our lives and apply to all occupations. Similar teachings were given by Buddha as dharma and had nothing to do with religion. They were just as much based on principles of the activities of our lives and apply to all occupations. — BrianW

From the POV of the western person seeking some spiritual dogma to follow because they cannot think for themselves, and must therefore borrow from others to lend their own personality a little depth - your dogma is entirely interchangeable with any religious dogma, and the claim it's not a religion - it's a philosophy, is a distinction without a difference. It's slightly different in its native context. There, it's an inter-generational religious practice - ideas ingrained into children before the age at which they're capable of rational judgement.

I don't know the religious system from which you derive enlightment but, it is obvious you do not know the Bhagavad Gita or even the teachings of Buddha. None of those teachings have anything to do with mysticism. Their teachings were and have been practised by many including those whose occupations are in the fields of science, politics, religion, philosophy, etc. — BrianW

I can think for myself, and think reality quite astonishing enough without needing to gussy it up with tawdry decoration. If you have anything as ineffable in your philosophy as wondering what the universe is expanding into, for example - then sign me up! If you have built any glittery thing to your god that's as magnificent as the starry sky, anything as beautiful as the sunrise, anything as profoundly excruciating as individual mortality against hope for the future of our children - then sign me up. Otherwise, I'll simply look reality in the eye and be humbled by its fearful majesty.

Also, the numerous machines and tools invented long before the 'science' revolution or 'the age of enlightenment' is a testament to the fact that analytical methods of investigation and the empirical value derived therefrom have been in existence for a very long time. Rationale was a part of humans long before the term science was coined. — BrianW

Here's a real thing most people don't see. Ask yourself - do you know more today than yesterday? Do you know more, and better today than when you were five years old? Clearly, knowledge has a direction - from less and worse knowledge, to more and better knowledge over time - and yet you parade the ancientness of your philosophy as a claim to superiority.

I don't know whether your scientific inclination allows you to use unfounded premises in your accusations but, I can assure you the valid teachings on enlightenment, eastern or otherwise, are not based on superstition. They are products of well reasoned out practices. — BrianW

I'm sure you think so. But how could you say otherwise? To my mind, your philosophy is quite easily categorized alongside religious dogma - and it's a pretense you don't have gods when you revere as gods claimants of a psychological state described as: "a state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality." If this isn't a religion - but a philosophy, if it isn't incompatible with science, presumably you can explain in terms of cause and effect how...

Satisfy the Divine with your sacrificial deeds — and It will satisfy you! By acting for Its sake, you will achieve the highest good.
For the Divine satisfied with your sacrificial deeds will grant you whatever you need in life. The one who receives gifts and gives no gifts in return, is verily a thief!
The righteous who live on the remains of their sacrificial gifts to God are liberated from sins. But those who are anxious only about their own food — they feed on sin!
Thanks to the food, the bodies of creatures grow. The food arises from rain. The rain arises from Sacrifice. (I.e., as a result of right behavior of people.) Sacrifice is performance of right action.
- Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3; 11-14. — BrianW

....rain arises from sacrifice. What this seems like to me, is a primitive terror that the crops will fail because the rains did not come - written into religious practice. What does this sacrifice entail? I imagine goods deeds and giving money to the church. It's no different to Catholicism - behavioral control by the clergy. i.e. the antithesis of Enlightenment.

I have to agree here Karl. I’m open to your reasoning and you are certainty intelligent, certainly, more so than myself for sure. But you are at risk of being closed.
Karl id like to start a personal dialogue with you discussing mainly these matters but others, related. Would you mind?
I’m no expert on debate but I feel like you are so maybe you can educate me in the process.
Let me know. — Dan84

I cannot imagine there's anything you can't say here. Afterall, this is a thread about yoga, and I'm discussing science and survival. If this is the Buddhist way of telling me to knock it off - just tell me to knock it off. It's okay to want things!

Or perhaps you might accept that, like nearly every other English word in existence, "enlightenment" has several meanings, all of which are clearly understood (from context) by the vast majority of English speakers? Here's one link, but there are many others. The Eastern meaning of "enlightenment" is listed as a known meaning of this word. Must we only use words in the way that you, personally, use them? Piffle! — Pattern-chaser

I'm quite sure, if asked, most people would understand the term enlightenment to refer to some eastern spiritual nonsense, and very few would know anything about the 18th century rationalist philosophical movement. What does that tell you? That science, while surrounding us with miracles of technology - and providing real knowledge of the world, is nonetheless held in contempt. I seek to address that - because truth is important, particularly as we face global scale existential threats. No amount of limb bending and chanting at the beyond is going to solve climate change. We need to complete the Enlightenment project.

Sorry old chap. I don’t like to result to insult but you are being a bit of an ass. Could you please cut out the assness. Just a little. — Dan84

I did try. I asked him to let it go, but he persisted. So I tried asking nicely - but I'm meeting with that infuriating denial of genuine human emotion Buddhists affect - as a pretense of spirituality.

Also, the term 'enlightenment' from the 'age of enlightenment' is borrowed from the spiritual teachings found in the ancient scriptures. Back then, they thought that a scientific revolution would bring about that beatific society often alluded to in scriptures. Compared to now, obviously they were wrong, or it is yet to happen. — BrianW

Your point is trivial - because until the the Enlightenment, religious systems of thought, and the language used to describe them were all that were available. Using the term enlightenment to describe the light of rational knowledge was a step forward. Science surrounds us with miracles that we can see and experience in the real world, and if science has not reached its full potential, it's because the Enlightenment project was resisted by people like you. Appropriating the term to describe your eastern mysticism is a step back into the shadows of religious ignorance. But if you're okay with it - be aware, there are innumerable gerera of intestinal parasite yet to be classified, so prepare yourself for the karma tapeworm Giardiasis Gita!

Not quite so.

Enlightenment, from the Bhagavad Gita, refers to a state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality. I have utmost confidence that every part of its teachings are consistent with rationale, scientific or otherwise. Also, every principle or law stated in the teachings are observable in their action through phenomena thus making empiricism evident. — BrianW

The actual Enlightenment refers to something real, that actually occurred, and is rationally comprehensible - a political movement in European history that rejected absolutist religious authority in favor of science and rationality.

A "state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality" is at best, a subjective psychological state - and at worst, a string of words that signify nothing. Either way, it's not consistent with empiricism - which requires proof of reliably reproducible phenomena.

Given that the Bhagavad Gita has names for this supposed psychological state - please use those. This is beyond cultural appropriation. It's cultural vandalism to claim Enlightenment can be achieved by sitting cross legged in one's pajamas, eyes closed and believing really, really hard! The Enlightenment is the very antithesis of that kind of nonsense.

The problem with this hypothesis to my mind, is that human beings are not probable. We are wildly improbable.
— karl stone
Up to a point demography is very accurate: that is when you make estimates going two three decades from now. This is obvious as the population that makes babies is already around.

The false "inescapability" of the Malthusian predictions is a case study of the dangers of simple logic and simple mathematical models when modeling extremely complicated issues. Extrapolation goes only so far. — ssu

I entirely agree. Demographic prediction depends on assumptions, explicit assumptions at the probable end, about how many babies the average woman is likely to have - but then there are implied assumptions about the improbable, like an asteroid won't hit the earth and wipe out half the population.

I'm being slightly facetious to illustrate the point - but Malthus could not have foreseen the development of agricultural science and technologies that allowed us to transcend his gloomy logic trap.

Similarly, I think the doomsday hypothesis cannot predict our future - for our future is overwhelmingly likely to be shaped, for better or worse - by highly improbable factors!

What enlightenment did you have in mind? — BrianW

The Enlightenment in European history was a period in which absolutist religious authority and religious reasoning were cast off, and rationality and science were embraced. Clearly, this was never fully realized - but separation of church and state, and other secular values are attributable to the era. Thus, I took the question to mean - can we complete the enlightenment project by accepting that science truthfully describes reality, and conducting our political and economic affairs accordingly. It is, to my mind - necessary to secure a sustainable future.

Clearly, you use the term enlightenment to refer to something else entirely, something inconsistent with a scientific rationale that demands empirical proof of reliably reproducible phenomena. I cannot help but consider this conflation of terms an unfortunate and unnecessary appropriation of a well established term with a specific and important meaning.

The English speaking world managed to understand and incorporate words like karma - such that continuing to colonize over the idea of enlightenment seems somewhat calculating on your part; a deliberate attempt to undermine an alternate and opposed system of thought. And if you are successful - I rather suspect the entire human species likely to achieve the nirvana of non-existence!!

When Krishna expounds on yoga in the Bhagavad Gita, the teachings are based on the principles of absolute unity. Yoga means absolute unity in spiritual teachings. Absolute unity means unity with everything or with the whole of reality. The different types of yoga are different paths to attaining such unity. Karma Yoga are teachings on how to attain unity through appropriate activity whether political, scientific, rational, social, etc, etc. Because those teachings are based on principles, they apply to all the various channels of our life-interactions.

The enlightenment taught in the Bhagavad Gita is a comprehensive enlightenment, the only problem for most people is the spiritual language used. However, I think it is possible to translate it into political, scientific, rational, social, etc, fields of association. — BrianW

I was quite content to have misunderstood - and for the word enlightenment to have been used in an entirely different sense here, to that which I had in mind. Because I'm a scientist and a rationalist, if you discuss this further, I shall be forced to adopt a critical position relative to your philosophy - and I have no desire to do so. Let us shake metaphorical hands and retreat to our separate realms, and for the avoidance of confusion in future, perhaps you might use the word moksha, or Kevala Jnana, or ushta instead. i.e. "Can we ever reach moksha?"

Really? Then you are not using the term "enlightenment" as it is commonly (exclusively?) used to describe this Eastern religio-philosophical concept, are you? Enlightenment has little or nothing to do with politics, science, rationality, or even reality (in the scientific sense), as I understand it. — Pattern-chaser

Then I'm sorry to have disturbed your obvious calm!

I certainly understand your objection- Schop wrote his work before Darwin's evolution was written, so I often wonder if that would have changed his position on both Platonic Forms and Representation. However, he does not deny that things existed prior to the first animal experience of the world, but he does say there is a sort of paradox where time/space/causality does not exist without the transcendental conditions that structure these particular things. Being a Kantian Idealist, he thinks that these things are in the mind, and not in the world. Thus, without a mind, there is no PSR, no time/space/causality. He even discusses the idea of the first animal eye, I believe and the strange paradox of this being the first representation. Actually, his idea here can is still relevant in modern (post-evolutionary studies) philosophy in the idea of ancestrality in the philosophy of Meillassoux. — schopenhauer1

Apparently - Will and Rep was written in 1818. J.B. Lamarck died in 1829 - the author of 'a' theory evolution - so, the idea of an objective reality existing independently of, and prior to human representation would not have been alien to Schop. Indeed, you describe how he addresses the matter. I had to google the term "antimony" - when the term 'wrong' is right there, and so much more easily understood.

Your knowledge (and/or that of Meillassoux) - of Schop's work, is so much more impressive than the subject matter itself. Subjectivism and metaphysics are to my mind, fundamentally flawed approaches - though I have some sympathy for Kant's insistence on first getting one's epistemology in order, that's merely to establish the truth of the contention that morality, like aesthetics is fundamentally a sense - inculcated by evolution, and finding imperfect expression in religion, politics, law, philosophy etc.

I am thus torn between explanations of subjectivism - as a basis to say nice things like:

'Man is more beautiful than all other objects’.

And a device to say nothing that might imply the moral relativism of religion, politics, law, philosophy etc, in face of a yawning nihilistic abyss. The interesting thing about nihilism is that it upholds no value that compels one to nihilism - such that having stared into the meaningless abyss, one can simply turn one's back and walk away. View it as a philosophical delousing.

My personal philosophy is objectivist and scientific, and yet recognizes morality as a sense - located in the human animal as a consequence of evolution in a tribal context - the sum of which, allows us to know what is true, and do what is right in terms of what is true - bridging the supposed is/ought divide. After-all, Hume's complaint was that we continually cite facts A, B and C - then switch into ought mode, for moral conclusions X, Y and Z. While logically unsupportable - it's what human beings do, because it's what human beings are!

Clearly, you imagine your preference for animals over humans — karl stone

That's not actually what he's expressing, imho. By arguing for a plant based diet, he's also arguing on behalf of human interests. What he's struggling with is that he sees our human interest clearly, but can't find an effective method of communicating that interest to those such as yourself who are determined to never get it no matter what. — Jake

The anti-progress misanthrope sides with the misanthropic herbivore, in agreement that:

Humans, I'd argue, are one of the worst species on the planet — chatterbears

So what are the others - as bad or worse? And by what criteria do make such a judgement?

I read the introduction, and the first sentence: 'The world is my representation.'

No, it isn't. There's an objective reality - existing prior to, and independently of human experience. The only sense in which 'they world is my representation' is due to my overwhelming ignorance of the objective reality, relative to other people's different, but nonetheless - still overwhelming ignorance of the objective reality. That so, beginning in such a way - Schopenhauer cannot hope to meet the demands he makes of a cogent philosophy in the introduction - where he writes:

'A system of thought must always have an architectonic connexion or coherence, that is to say a connexion in which one part always supports the other, though not the latter the former, in which the foundation stone carries all the parts without being carried by them, and in which the pinnacle is upheld without upholding.'

We can, and do - get from objective reality to human experience via evolution. The opposite does not, and cannot work. He continues:

"It then becomes clear and certain to him that he does not know a sun and an earth, but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world around him is there only as representation, in other words, only in reference to another thing, namely that which represents, and this is himself."

The world is not my representation; precisely because of evolution. There was no representation before human thought, but the world existed - and changed to bring human representation into being. So the pinnacle necessarily upholds a foundation laid on sand.

I both agree and do not agree with Rosenberg's view on morality and evolution. I feel like it is possible for our core morality to stem from natural selection and adaptive drives. However, if that were really the case, why isn't the dog-eat-dog morality one of our morals? — Play-doh

Because you fundamentally misunderstand evolution - when you reduce it to the adage 'survival of the fittest.' Humans evolved in a tribal context - and the tribe best able to survive was one in which its individual members had a moral sense that compelled them to share food, fight together against threats, look after the young and so forth. Fittest in that sense, was anything but dog eat dog. Something Nietzsche got wrong to catastrophic effect.

I have encountered this hypothesis before. I think it was v-sauce on youtube - well worth checking out if you haven't already. The problem with this hypothesis to my mind, is that human beings are not probable. We are wildly improbable. Around 1800 Thomas Malthus predicted that humankind faced starvation because, while human population grows exponentially - 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 etc, agricultural land must necessarily grow arithmetically 1 acre, plus 1 acre, plus 1 acre. The logic seemed inescapable - yet here we are, 7 billion strong and better fed than ever. We are inherently improbable creatures - and existing for the long term is well within our reach.

I think the subject is implied by - but not present in the sentence, and is the self. The sentence is another way of saying 'I experience raining.' The subject is the self - experiencing rain, implied by 'it' - which is the objective reality, relative to the subjective self.

When I read "enlightenment" - I didn't think yoga. I thought political system based on science and rationality. Evidence of the benefits of science and rationality surround us; this computer for example - is to my mind, miraculous. The knowledge that allows for this computer to exist is a small aspect of the truth of reality - and to my mind, enlightenment would be to accept that science describes reality, and act accordingly. The consequence would not be some immaterial sense of enlightenment - but a better world, forged in pursuit of responsibility to truth. Further though, I think there are real psychological and spiritual benefits - that not only would the outer world function better, but the inner world would too.

In other words, humans are selfish assholes, lol. But I agree. Humans, I'd argue, are one of the worst species on the planet lol. All we do is ruin the lives of everything around us, including our own species. It's quite sad actually. — chatterbears

It seems to me your vegetarianism is self congratulatory, rather than ethical. You have no firm grasp on what ethics are, you haven't argued in those terms, and have been reduced to repeating a mantra about "the needless torture and murder of animals" - and calling the human species selfish assholes.

Clearly, you imagine your preference for animals over humans on such solid ground you have no need to grapple with the idea of ethics as a moral system, in relation to the facts of the real world; in which, despite the meteoric - if somewhat chaotic progress of civilization, billions of people still go to bed hungry.

It wasn't that long ago - the only way of life was rural, and when the crops failed people starved - just as animals do in nature. We drag ourselves out of the dirt, misery and savagery of a state of nature - and some simpering, self congratulatory, pseudo-ethical bigot, would cast all humankind as selfish assholes in comparison to himself. Well now we know!

Plain and simple, animals would not be needlessly killed if society stopped buying animal products. — chatterbears

Can you honestly be saying at this stage of debate - that if people were vegetarians, animals would not be farmed? There's a difference between simple and simplistic. Constantly seeking to bias the argument by needlessly introducing terms like needlessly - demonstrates that your argument is a prejudiced opinion. Prejudice obscures the truth.

It's nominally true:

Once the consumer stops demanding that product, that product stops existing. — chatterbears

But is't also a fact that animals are not needlessly killed. They're killed for food, and the vast majority of people eat meat. They are not likely to stop doing so - and you have not established, morally speaking, that they should.

And you still haven't explained WHY it is ok to kill and eat a pig, but not a dog or human? Are you going to actually answer this question? — chatterbears

I'm not a farmer. I don't know anything about raising pigs. I don't have a dog either. I imagine there are reasons that pigs are farmed, and dogs are not. But it's not universal, is it? In China and Korea dogs are farmed and eaten. And there were cannibals in New Guinea that ate human flesh. Interestingly, I understand - eating human brains gave them the equivalent of mad cow disease.

What a fail on many different levels. To come into a philosophy forum and claim you don't have to be consistent in your ethics, followed by justifying an action by saying "I love a bacon sandwich and I don't care." - Do you actually even care to be consistent in your ethics? — chatterbears

It's entirely acceptable in my culture to eat bacon sandwiches. Just as it's acceptable to eat dogs in Korea, and human flesh in New Guinea. How can I be consistent when the world is so diverse? I can offer my perspective, as you have offered yours. I do not personally relish the idea of eating dog flesh or human flesh, but I reject your claim that my position is - it's okay to eat pig, but not dog or human. It's too simplistic - if you are seeking to establish that our dominion over animals is unethical.

Depends on the cost efficiency of that pill. — chatterbears

As I said, I love to cook, and I love to eat. It's one of the great pleasures in life - and I would not forgo that pleasure needlessly. There are not vegetable substitutes for meat based dishes, and just because it's possible to survive on vegetable matter alone, does not infer that vegetarianism is an equal substitute, anymore than taking a pill would be.

"I don't need to be consistent. It's your morals that are in question, not mine." - Then there is really no point to have a discussion, since you want it to be one-sided without any criticism or responsibility on your side. — chatterbears

The fact that the title of this thread, which you started, is posed in the form of a question - belies your real position. You ask a question and then insist on an answer - and nothing anyone has said, despite some very good arguments from myself and others, has shifted you one inch. It's that - that makes it your views that are in question, and not mine. You came here with an agenda - while pretending you were trying to decide a question, you had already decided.

How ironic it is to say, "that's not philosophy - is it?", coming from the person doesn't care to be consistent, and justifies their actions by saying "I don't care." - Is that your version of philosophy? Talk about an opinion... — chatterbears

I'm only saying "I don't care" in the context of paying taxes to government, to employ people who know all about farming - to do that caring for me. What purpose would my ignorant hand-wringing serve?

You say you don't like the idea of animal cruelty and unnecessary torture, but then continue to support industries that do it? Talk about cognitive dissonance. — chatterbears

Then someone is not doing their job, and that's who you should spend your time harassing. I don't know anything about farming. On a well run farm, I very much doubt there's "animal cruelty and unnecessary torture" - because what would be the point? That would be like a potter smashing his pots. But then, you're speaking in relation to an imaginary ideal - garden of eden type scenario, wherein the loin lays down with lamb. The sad fact is, those animals are going to die one way or another. Stunned and cut and bled - is probably preferable to attacked and torn open and eaten alive.

You can never answer any of my questions, can you. It may be pointless to continue this conversation (between us), because you don't care about actually answering questions and challenging your own moral inconsistencies. As I said before, it's laughably ironic to say to me, "That's not philosophy - is it?", but then say things like "Do I have to be consistent." - Followed by taking the question out of context by applying it to an extreme survival situation, instead of the situation I framed the question in. — chatterbears

I disagree. This has been most useful to me. I always assumed vegetarians were a bit flaky, but I had no idea. This was your question:

For you to stay consistent, would you then be ok with us exploiting a human who has the same consciousness as a dog or cow? Such as a mentally deranged or handicapped person, who has a lower level of consciousness compared to normal human beings. Since they do not have the same awareness of themselves and of the world, as well as not being able to think creatively, are we then justified in exploiting mentally retarded people? Let's see if you're willing to bite the bullet here. — chatterbears

I think I answered perfectly reasonably. I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want to exploit a mentally deranged or handicapped person. Is that a better answer than the one I can up with?

If it were a survival situation - say, there's limited oxygen, and besides yourself - you could only save one person. Would it be them? Are you telling me - that they would have an exactly equal chance of being saved? Or would the retarded person be the first out the airlock - if push came to shove? In extremis, given no other options, that's a bullet I'd bite - and if you're honest with yourself, so would you! But even the retard would outlive the dog! — karl stone

What you seem loathe to acknowledge - is that there is a natural pecking order; and thus, your attempts to conflate the moral worth of a human being with the moral worth of an animal are intuitively wrong. And so I have explained why it's okay to kill a pig or a dog, but not a human being - and if you had read my post before responding to it - you'd have known that. But then, you're not here to consider the question you asked. You already know the answer - so you start typing before you start reading, and you're not really thinking at all - you're merely reacting on the basis of your prejudices. If there's no point continuing this discussion - that's the reason.

The point is dead if you're not willing to understand it. If you cannot get past the idea that you, as the consumer, are partly responsible for how a good/product is produced, then I don't know what else to tell you. — chatterbears

I do understand. I do not agree. What I would tell you is that there are many ways of conceptualizing the world. In your conception the consumer is responsible. In mine, consumer sovereignty is an unsustainable cognitive burden, and responsibility lies with the producer. The question is - which is more useful.

And you still haven't explained why. Why is it ok to kill a dog or pig for unnecessary reasons, but not ok to kill a human for unnecessary reasons? — chatterbears

I see the trap here. Pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs, so I'm led to believe. I don't know if it's true - because my experience with either animal is extremely limited. I've never eaten dog meat - while I eat bacon regularly. Would I eat dog? Under the right circumstances - north pole expedition, holiday in Korea. But otherwise, no!

Plant-based products are a cruelty-free alternative to eating meat. You don't have to eat plant-based products that mimic meat. You can eat rice, grains, pasta, beans, nuts, vegetables, fruits, tofu, fortified soy milk, rice milk, etc... You can get all your daily nutrients without eating meat. There's alternatives, so why aren't you going to use them? — chatterbears

If you're attempting to establish hypocrisy in my position, it shouldn't be difficult. But then I'm not the one making claim to moral superiority. It's you that needs a consistent position. Ultimately I can simply say - I love a bacon sandwich, and I don't care. But I'm attempting to meet you on the ground laid out by your proposition - to test the idea that our dominion over animals is unethical.

Let me ask you a question. If scientists developed a pill you could take, and you'd have all the nutrition you need without having to eat at all - would you think that a good thing, and take it? I wouldn't. I love to cook, and I love to eat. I have a theory that vegetarians can't cook. They don't really like to eat. It is in their view, a chore. Where in my view, it's a pleasure - and to be utterly honest, the savagery and sacrifice adds to the experience.

Again, provide evidence that humans are being slaves in the same ways animals are. You make up hypothetical scenarios without any data to back it up, while I actually have data to show you what goes on in these farms. Also, even if it were the case that all plant-based products were produced by human labor, you eat those as well, do you not? So you support two types of exploitation (human and animal), while I only support one type (human). But I find it interesting that you won't answer questions, but instead just keep shifting the focus away from yourself and pointing the finger at me without any proper data. — chatterbears

It's a rhetorical point. I have no evidence. If the point were raised against me - I'd dismiss it on the grounds that human beings have free will. All I'm saying is that you're happy to depend on human labour, but were it an animal it would be condemned as exploitation. It's your morals that are in question, not mine. I accept that life is a web of inter-dependencies. The food chain is one of them. The plants you eat are part of that web, a web of life that involves animals eating other animals.

And you still haven't explained why murdering a human is wrong, but murdering an animal is not? Also, animals eat each other out of necessity for survival. We eat animals out of pleasure and convenience, not for survival. If you were in a survival situation, such as wild animals are, I would then be happy to deploy my consistency and not condemn you for eating an animal for survival. But you are not in that situation, so why are you trying to compare two things that are not equal? Also, no. I do not feed my dog meat. We order eggs from an ethical farm (which does not kill or strain the animals), in which I cook those eggs with lentils, carrots, peas, etc... — chatterbears

I did explain at the bottom of my previous post - the difference between animals and human beings. In a word, awareness. And above I explained that I don't accept plants are an alternative to meat. I don't eat primarily for survival. I eat to assuage hunger, and I eat for pleasure. Thankfully, survival is a very distant motive. I wonder, if offered meat - would your dog enjoy it? It doesn't have sharp teeth for cutting grass. Our teeth are those of an omnivorous creature. Dogs mostly eat meat, and historically, it's why humans and dogs became companions. If humans had only gathered, and never hunted - we'd be on the dogs menu!

Again, not going to go over this with you again. If you don't understand simple supply and demand, I don't know what to tell you. — chatterbears

Do you really imagine I don't understand your simplistic argument? I made it clear I understand it - when I explained the concept of consumer sovereignty. The problem is, you think you're right - and therefore, anyone who doesn't agree is stupid. Allow me to assure you from this vantage point - it's the other way around. It's you who doesn't understand - why consumer sovereignty is a fundamentally misconceived approach.

why do continue to buy animal products, when it is a widely known fact that animals are being exploited? And if you are going to appeal to species, then what's your justification. Why is it ok to exploit an animal, but not exploit a human? — chatterbears

Again, I explained this at the bottom of my previous post.

Similarly, I know for a fact that animals are being exploited, so I stopped buying animal products. This is called ethical consistency, which you don't seem to care about. — chatterbears

You're not taking anything I say on board, are you? Nothing. I understand where you're coming from, and criticize your position, but you don't understand and criticize mine. All you're doing is banging the same drum - it's cruel, it's cruel, it's murder, it's wrong, it's cruel. That's not philosophy - is it? It's the opinion of an opinionated person.

I do care about animal cruelty, but as I explained - it's not my responsibility. The responsibility to farm and kill animals in a manner that is as humane as possible is best located with the producer - for the reasons already stated. I don't know anything about farming, and I don't want to know - just as I don't know how clothes, or electricity, or Samsung phones are made. And for you to suggest it's my responsibility to know is false. I cannot do that. I can only pay my taxes, and employ government to act on my behalf in the manner it sees fit.

So because a dog does not have consciousness of itself and the world, as well as not being able to think creatively, we are then justified in exploiting that dog for our pleasure and convenience, correct? I can torture and kill that dog and use its skin for my boots and/or clothing, since his consciousness isn't as high as mine, right? — chatterbears

I can't say I like the idea. And it's not necessary to torture an animal to kill it and eat it, and use its skin for clothing. As I've said, I do care about animal cruelty, but believe that responsibility lies with the producer. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you will take up the point and question it - rather than simply ignoring it, and insisting it's cruel, it's murder, it's torture blah, blah, blah.

For you to stay consistent, would you then be ok with us exploiting a human who has the same consciousness as a dog or cow? Such as a mentally deranged or handicapped person, who has a lower level of consciousness compared to normal human beings. Since they do not have the same awareness of themselves and of the world, as well as not being able to think creatively, are we then justified in exploiting mentally retarded people? Let's see if you're willing to bite the bullet here. — chatterbears

Would I? Do I have to be consistent? Can I not extend sympathy to a person, who's personhood is damaged in some way? But let's examine the proposition. If it were a survival situation - say, there's limited oxygen, and besides yourself - you could only save one person. Would it be them? Are you telling me - that they would have an exactly equal chance of being saved? Or would the retarded person be the first out the airlock - if push came to shove? In extremis, given no other options, that's a bullet I'd bite - and if you're honest with yourself, so would you! But even the retard would outlive the dog!

So until the government put animal cruelty laws in place, you didn't know how to not be cruel to animals? You seem to be saying, you will go along with whatever the laws/government say and not think for yourself, correct? Because I don't need the government to tell me not to kick my dog, as I know that causes unnecessary harm. Same with eating animals. — chatterbears

I don't keep animals. I don't keep farm animals, and I don't keep animals as pets. The question of animal cruelty isn't an issue for me. The question of how to properly cook and garnish a steak however - is a question close to my heart. Even so, generally, I obey the law. If meat were illegal - I wouldn't eat it. It would be so expensive, I couldn't afford it, and be of such questionable quality - I wouldn't want it. But make no mistake - it would still be available, and produced without any regulation on animal cruelty. You might argue current regulations are insufficient, and that's an argument to take up with government. If you did, I might support you - but guilting the consumer is fundamentally the wrong approach.

Animals can be killed. And whether or not I kill an animal myself, or I pay somebody else to do it, I am still responsible. Whether that is by 1st hand or 2nd hand, doesn't matter. This originally started with you saying you are not responsible for how the animals are treated or killed, yet you pay for them to be mistreated and killed. Same with a hitman. If I pay a hitman to kill somebody, I am responsible for that person's death. Instead of acknowledging this point, you focus on the term "murder", which isn't relevant here. What is relevant is whether or not you are responsible for doing a crime yourself, or paying someone else to do the crime for you. — chatterbears

I see that you are responding paragraph by paragraph - rather than reading the whole post before responding. I built a case, and addressed this matter again later. I understood your argument the first time. The only point I wanted to make was that there's no moral equivalence between killing people and killing animals.

Three points here.

1. You'd have to provide evidence that the parts I bought to build my pc, were made by humans who were exploited. You would then have to provide me with an alternative that is cruelty-free (made by humans were NOT exploited). After you have done that, I would happily buy those parts instead, which makes me ethically consistent. If I refused to buy different parts, even after you have shown me evidence of human exploitation, then you could say I am committing an immoral action. And that is the position you are in. I have shown you an alternative (plant-based diet), that would eliminate the exploitation of animals (animal products you eat). But instead of accepting that alternative and changing your actions accordingly, you will continue to support animal exploitation, correct? — chatterbears

So are you saying that not eating meat is an alternative to eating meat? I completely disagree. And so it seems, do most vegetarians. You don't eat vegetables - so much as vegetables disguised as meat. Producers mimic meat stews, sausages, cutlets - they give them a pseudo-meat flavour, and try to create the same mouth feel. Furthermore, those products are made by human labour. Have you ever stood in one place, in the cold, packing crap in a box for nine hours straight? So you would torture humans to produce fake meat, and then break your arm patting yourself on the back - because you haven't been cruel to animals. So it can't be about "equality and compassion" - for while you maintain "animals are people too" - you don't act like "people are animals too."

2. Murder is a useless term in this context, as we are talking about unjust and unnecessary killing. Whether you want to call that murder, slaughter, or just killing, it doesn't matter. People can be killed unjustly. Animals can be killed unjustly. The term "murder" is irrelevant to the actual reality of sentient beings dying unnecessarily. — chatterbears

Again, not so. Murder is not killing. Putting a person to death for a crime is not murder. Assisted dying is not murder. Killing in self defense, or the defense of others, is not murder. In none of these cases would you hire a hitman. I don't know who peter is - but he was murdered, if not by you then by your hitman. You clearly meant to equate killing animals with the murder of a human being. But as we've shown above, your equality is hypocritical. The fact is animals eat eachother - so, to be consistently equal - if "humans are animals too" - you would need to condemn all animals that kill and eat other animals. Do you feed your dog meat?

3. Lastly, a one time purchase of computer parts (every 5-7 years) causes far less suffering than eating 3 meals per day (which all include animal products). This leads to billions of animals being slaughtered every year. How many humans were slaughtered for my computer parts? Not to mention, for how many people I have talked to using my computer, in which they have change their mind on many different topics, has a positive net benefit overall. I am not saying this justifies human exploitation, but there is no net positive benefit to consuming animal products, unlike buying a computer. I can criticize racists and display animal rights activism through my computer, but what can eating a hamburger do for you? — chatterbears

So some animal exploitation is okay. If I only eat meat occasionally - is it less morally wrong? Does that apply to other things? If a promise not to hire a hitman to kill anyone else, can I have peter killed? It was one in seven billion people, and just the one time - and he was really asking for it, like cows do by being so darn tasty! No! If it's murder, it's always murder.

It's a bit troubling how far you will go to rationalize your food consumption. Eating is not something you do once in a while that may or may not be linked to exploitation of sentient beings. Eating is something you do 3 times a day, which has massive impact on the world around you. And not just in regards to the immoral aspect of it, but what about the environmental damage it causes? — chatterbears

I'm having a discussion with someone who believes eating meat is wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with me justifying eating meat. It requires no justification. It's legal, it's available, and I like it. That's my justification, and I find it perfectly sufficient. If I go deeper it's for the purposes of debate. My reason for engaging in this debate is because I find your approach fundamentally misconceived and potentially fatal. Placing the burden of responsibility with the consumer - gives producers a free hand to produce in the cheapest, dirtiest was possible - and market their goods to people who just don't care.

I argue that the responsibility lies with government and producers - to produce in a scientifically justified, and sustainable manner. If that meant meat were illegal - then so be it.

If it was a known fact that Samsung uses child labor to make the Galaxy Note 9, and I went out and bought the Galaxy Note 9, am I not contributing to the child labor in which Samsung has initiated? Or should I be like you and say, "I don't work in the tech industry, nor am I a phone inspector working for the government." - This is an extremely harmful way of thinking. — chatterbears

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not excluding people from making ethical choices. I'm saying that consumer sovereignty is a flawed approach. (p.s. unless you know for a fact that Samsung does use child labour - don't make things like this up. This is slander, or libel - and I wish to disassociate myself from your remarks.) That said, it again comes back to adequate regulation - because a) I can't know everything about how anything is produced, and b) I may not care. Government on the other hand, is meant to know and is meant to care. That's their job. It's not my job - and if you leave it to me, it won't get done!

Ok, so should I apply your thought process to people too? Should we go back to owning slaves, since equality is not what nature has in store for animals? Since, it is a fact we are animals as well. We are a slightly higher intelligent animal, but still an animal. And by your logic, we should not abide by the values of empathy, compassion or equality, correct? And if you think those values should only apply to humans, but not animals, what is your justification for doing so? — chatterbears

You do not seem to comprehend my thought processes. This is an implication from your argument. I make a distinction between human beings and animals, because human beings have a qualitatively distinct awareness of themselves in the world. In the anthropological literature, there was an event called the 'creative explosion' - that marks a sudden change in behviour, we know about because before - stone hand tools of a similar design going back about 1.5 million years, and afterward, improved tools, jewelry, cave art and burial of the dead.

To produce these things requires the psychological ability to construct forward facing strategies - to have an idea in mind, and to envisage the steps necessary to make that idea manifest. In short, the human being has a future and a past, a consciousness of itself and the world, and the ability to think creatively. It's that - that's deserving of moral consideration. But if we crashed on a mountain, and you were killed - I would have no compunction whatsoever about eating your flesh. Unless there was cow available, or even nut cutlets! I'm not keen on eating human flesh - but to survive, I would, and it wouldn't be small frozen chunks either. I'd fry you up with some onions!

So you would rather stay willfully ignorant, than to understand the truth and change accordingly? You are responsible for what happens to these animals, as you are the customer who demands the product they produce while being tortured and slaughtered. If we did not demand these products, the products would not exist. They only exist because we demand them, hence we are responsible for their existence. — chatterbears

I perhaps didn't emphasize enough the division of labour I alluded to in my previous post. I am not a farmer. I don't know anything about farming. Other people do know about farming. They are specialists in the practice of keeping, raising and killing animals for food. Then there's government that regulates business. So what I'm saying is, that I would rather pay my taxes, have government decide scientifically on standards of animal husbandry - and apply laws on that basis that place the burden of responsibility on the producer - where it belongs.

- I kill peter myself.
- I hire a hitman to kill peter.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not responsible for the death of peter in the 2nd situation? — chatterbears

Are you saying that animals can be murdered? There's a case going through the British courts at present, in which for reasons too lengthy to relate - an employment tribunal judge is deciding whether "ethical veganism" is a philosophy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-46421221/sacked-man-claims-discrimination-against-his-ethical-veganism

I say it's not, because it lacks the cogency required of a philosophy. It's an opinion, because - above you say:

Veganism is about equality and compassion. — chatterbears

But it's not an equality that applies both ways. I know just from the fact you are using a computer you didn't build you are happy to exploit human labour, but if it were an animal performing labour, you'd have an ethical objection - and premise that on equality and compassion, that leads to you to equate the killing of animals with the killing of people. Killing people is murder, and any part in a murder has an equivalent moral consequence. That's not so if it's not murder.

The concept you might have employed to better effect is consumer sovereignty - which you describe perfectly well here:

You are responsible for what happens to these animals, as you are the customer who demands the product they produce while being tortured and slaughtered. If we did not demand these products, the products would not exist. They only exist because we demand them, hence we are responsible for their existence. — chatterbears

Certainly, to some degree - my demand induces supply. However, the assumption that it's wrong is not safe. Because it's the very question we are examining, it cannot be a premise. i.e. you cannot say eating meat is wrong because eating meat is wrong. It's a tautology. You cannot cogently argue that eating meat is wrong on grounds of equality, unless you would also forgo all interdependence on human labour. Do you imagine farmers want to plow, and plant and harvest crops? It's hard work - I imagine. So you would torture a farmer, but not a cow? The equality argument doesn't hold either.

In that context, if you would argue consumer sovereignty - you merely confirm that eating meat is a choice, and it's a choice the consumer - as sovereign, is perfectly entitled to make.

To claim it is an unsustainable cognitive burden, is to completely lack any ability to take responsibility for your actions and improve as a thinking moral being. — chatterbears

I disagree, because of the division of labour. This is inherent to the human condition. We cannot know everything - but we can be very good at a few things. We are interdependent specialists, and by these means I discharge my moral duty, if any. It's not realistic to place upon me the burden of knowing about farming because I'm not a farmer, and nor am I a farm inspector working for the government. I employ them, at some remove - in the expectation that the manner of production and slaughter is as humane as possible, or - to decide on my behalf, if such products should be available at all. There are products that are not available - despite a demand for them. So to say my demand is responsible for their production is false.

You say:

You have time to think for an hour per day, researching what happens in the world we live in. This is how we become more aware and obtain knowledge of what goes on in our world. — chatterbears

In that case, it behooves you to acknowledge the reality of evolution. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Animals appear designed in relation to their environment, because each surviving species is a marble cut from a mountain, where those not best suited to survive are simply discarded. Suffering and death is the fate of animals in nature - and the toll is sky high. That's the reality - and for you imagine that equality and compassion should prevail is a comforting pretense. That's your opinion and prerogative - but it has little to do with the world we live in.

We don't eat animals - we eat carrion. In nature, animals eat eachother alive. Agriculture is less cruel than nature!
— karl stone

Can you give an example of this? And I will assume you do not know what goes on within these factory farms. — chatterbears

Carrion is the flesh of dead animals. That's what we eat. We don't eat animals like lions eat animals - or the larva of a parasitic wasp eats animals, or sharks etc, etc.

In nature, the act of eating and killing are often much the same thing.

In agriculture, they are separate - such that, very few people do the killing, while the vast majority of people only do the eating.

For you to say to me: "I will assume you do not know what goes on within these factory farms."

What you're saying is that the killing is my responsibility - but in fact, I don't know what goes on in these factory farms, and I don't want to know.

Similarly, when I boil a kettle - it's not my fault that the electricity is not renewable energy. That responsibility lies elsewhere. What should I do? Not boil a kettle, not wash my clothes, not watch TV because for reasons beyond my control or understanding - it's not renewable energy when it could be?

Similarly, should I not eat meat because the animal might not have lived and died in the best conditions possible? How could I possibly know? The responsibility is not with the end user. It's with the producer - of electricity, of meat, and of every other thing.

You'll say - well, you don't have to eat meat. Maybe that's true - but I like meat. The animal could have lived well and died humanely; more humanely than in nature. If you would demand I know the provenance of everything I eat, ultimately you place an unsustainable cognitive burden upon me - that's simply not my responsibility. Or demand that I forego that which I cannot guarantee is consistent with the highest ethical standards.

And because I can't guarantee any such about anything, the logical conclusion of your argument is sitting around in hemp kaftans, singing cum-by-yar, while waiting on a pot of lentils to cook by the heat of a beeswax candle - and that's just not a way of life that appeals to me in the least.

We don't eat animals - we eat carrion. In nature, animals eat eachother alive. Agriculture is less cruel than nature!