I think there are at least two issues to parse there:
1. Is it normal for most people to feel guilty about engaging in cannibalistic acts.
2. Is it normal for most people to gravitate toward eating the meat of humans. — 3017amen
Any justification seems to have unacceptable ethical consequences. — hypericin
Imagine a mom who has a terminally ill child and poodle, with money to treat only one. She treats the poodle. Who wouldn't be disgusted by this choice? — hypericin
But destroying all living species just to buy more stuff, is lunacy. — Manuel
. . . do we ever know enough to know that what is has been exhausted? — Manuel
But we're still not listening enough. — Manuel
"What is" is all around us and, rather than trying to "know" all about it through some cognitive, analytical, critical, scientific dissection of it, it can better be known by living it, by being it. A first step in the journey is to not perceive of ourselves as separate, but merely different, and then observing, and entering into a relationship with what is. In his example, that relationship is the hunt. — James Riley
Take a survey of the court decisions, and create a potentially reliable average of a randomized plot design*. — god must be atheist
And so, in reference to the OP, you haven't been able to make the correlation between human value systems and other primates. — 3017amen
I did exactly that. You misattributed to me an argument about cannibalism that I did not make. I tried to show you that animals alone are no more prone to cannibalism that we are. Thus, we are back to being alike. — James Riley
Animals, like people, are not prone to it. So you see, when you said: — James Riley
Humans kill each other for food. Or do you deny this? Literally, wars have been fought over it. And it falls four-square within the Darwin's theory. — James Riley
I hope that's clear enough for you. In short, we are animals. — James Riley
I think there are at least two issues to parse there:
1. Is it normal for most people to feel guilty about engaging in cannibalistic acts.
2. Is it normal for most people to gravitate toward eating the meat of humans. — 3017amen
I think most humans are instinctively repulsed by the thought of eating human flesh. But any of us might do it in circumstances of dire hunger. Eating the flesh of those who have already died in some disaster scenario is one thing, killing others to feed ourselves is another. Can any of us reliably know what we would do in dire circumstances, sitting pretty with food aplenty as we are at present? — Janus
you haven't made the distinction as to why we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people for food. — 3017amen
True and false. True in the sense that people don't; false in the sense that not all animals don't. Obviously not all animals are carnivorous. — 3017amen
We're not talking about wars, people fighting over food resources, etc.. — 3017amen
Unfortunately it's not clear. You haven't proven how that squares with human value systems. Did you? — 3017amen
You seem to be back to arguing 'hey we are simply all animals and our human value systems are no different'. Then when I ask you for examples, you can't support the argument, only by saying, we act like all of them and are just like them for some unknown Darwinian reason. And that's false of course.
Honestly, am I missing your point? — 3017amen
you haven't made the distinction as to why we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people for food. — 3017amen
I guess we are back to the cannibalism thing. Okay, we don't naturally, and consistently, default to, or gravitate toward killing other people *to eat* for the same reason that animals generally don't. Regardless of what that reason is, that makes us more like animals, not less. Which was the entire point of my response to the OP and you. But, if we want to digress and speculate as to the reason why (which is irrelevant) I suppose it's because evolution decided that humans eating humans resulted in things like spongiform encephalopathy, or a compounding of toxins, or extinction due to eating each other until there is only one left and no one to breed with. — James Riley
We kill each other for food all the time. Wars have been fought over it. — James Riley
I'm not sure if you are, or if you're just trolling me. I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt,
1. We are animals. Do you dispute that?
2. The OP was about value, not difference. We have two legs, not four. We are different. Doh! The question is, do our differences make us more or less valuable. I said no. If you have a problem with that, then argue it. Don't line out a false dichotomy based on cannibalism.
3. I gave you examples of how we are animals.
4. I argued why we are no more valuable than animals.
5. You have failed to demonstrate how animal value systems differ among species. They don't. Even if they did, that would not make us more valuable than them. — James Riley
That's exactly what I'm arguing. — 3017amen
You are thinking it's a digression. — 3017amen
It's not. — 3017amen
It should be an integral part of your theory. Right? — 3017amen
As such, you are now "speculating" that evolution decided that we should not eat other humans. How does that work(?). Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing. — 3017amen
And so are you suggesting then we should rightfully kill the poodle as posited in the OP? — 3017amen
1. Based upon your theory, yes. — 3017amen
2. Agreed, and you haven't argued for value. — 3017amen
3. They are not germane to value systems from higher consciousness/humans — 3017amen
4. You did, but it fell short. It didn't incorporate value systems, other than acts of violence and other barbaric behavior. — 3017amen
5. I simply asked why, in your theory of evolution, we are still not eating each other for food like some other animals do. — 3017amen
If we are no different, as you claim, then you should be able to tell me why, how and by what method did that evolve. — 3017amen
If you don't know how evolution works, get a book. If you want to attach "value", or call them "value systems" then that which is found "valuable" is a random mutation or genetic accident that survived. But this is all irrelevant to the question of whether animals or humans have more value. — James Riley
Cats don't eat cats. Wolves don't eat wolves. — James Riley
So, if you want to distinguish between animals that are cannibals as a matter of course, then you need not compare them to humans — James Riley
They are what they are. — James Riley
We are no different, as I claim. The why, how and method are the same how, why and method of other animals. Evolution. Darwin. I'm not a biologist. We're talking about value. — James Riley
Then, how did we stop this practice through evolution? — 3017amen
I don't know what that means. Please describe how random mutations and genetic accidents (Darwinism) provides for such a value system(s) as we've been briefly discussing. Thank you. — 3017amen
But other species do. Hence my original question to you in support of your evolutionarily argument. — 3017amen
That's your job. You made the claim, I didn't. Didn't you posit evolution as your justification? — 3017amen
What does that mean? — 3017amen
We might be getting somewhere. How does human's value systems arise from evolution? — 3017amen
If we're no different, we should not care about killing the OP poodle under any circumstance, right? — 3017amen
I know this may seem frustrating, but you can't say something is so without justifying your position. — 3017amen
If humans are more valuable, why? How do you justify this assertion? Any justification seems to have unacceptable ethical consequences. For instance, is it due to their (relative lack of) intelligence? Then, human value must also be gradated on the basis of intelligence, and from there we arrive at eugenics. — hypericin
A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Who said it ever started? — James Riley
That's evolution and, normally, unrelated to values or value systems — James Riley
So compare those other species to cats and wolves. You see how humans are not unique on the cannibalism front? — James Riley
Circumstances can control. If we are hungry and want to eat the poodle, we will kill it. If we perceive the poodle to be competing for resources with us, we will kill it. If it's annoying us, we will kill it. This analysis applies to the wolf - poodle relationship to. — James Riley
It's frustrating because I have justified my position, repeatedly. So much so that I will, from here on out, simply say the record speaks for itself. Unless and until you broach a new issue, you must seek any further answers to your question by going back and re-reading the thread. In fact, as your new teacher, I hereby give you this assignment: Go back, re-read the thread, and make my argument for me. At that point I will be able to discern the sincerity of your curiosity. — James Riley
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.