We may argue that humans are biologically omnivores therefore it’s natural to eat meat. But just because something is ‘natural’, it doesn’t make it ethical, writes Alex Melonas.
How do you defend eating what and whom you eat? Something like this: While we may wrestle with the ethics of eating animals, doing so – that is, eating them – is instinctual, biologically motivated behavior. Therefore, you might conclude, vegans are denying the hard fact that humans are part of the “circle of life”. Omnivorism is, in a word, “natural”.
Now, according to the American Dietetic Association (ADA), veganism is healthy at all stages of the life cycle. Indeed, its latest report suggests that a vegan diet has health benefits. “Natural”, then, does not mean need. It may be “natural” to eat animals, but doing so is a choice nonetheless.
So, re-read that first paragraph, and ask yourself, assuming the premise is factually true and predation is in our genetic code, as it were, does that mean that using animals for food (or anything else) is ethical?
Nothing ethically relevant follows from what is “natural”, whatever actions you ascribe to that concept. Before I defend that claim, though, what is “natural” anyway? In accordance with nature might be a definition. But what is “natural”?
“Natural” is merely a result of an ongoing process of evolution by natural selection. There isn’t a moral arbiter guiding this chain of events. There aren’t herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores because he/she/it said it ought to be that way. There just are.
It is amoral evolution that determines these results: in other words “selfish genes” using plant and animal bodies as disposable vehicles. Eating animals could have been one of the behaviors that happened to be selected for, but that fact is arbitrary from an ethical point of view.
The conceptual difference, then, between “natural” and “ethical” could not be any greater. It is a logical fallacy to try and bridge this is/ought gap.
So, eating animals is natural, we might assume, but so what, ethically speaking?
“Natural” is an antiquated concept, but oftentimes people are not persuaded by reason and continue to insist that there is a natural order to things, and predator-prey relationships are inherent in that order (a “natural law”). Human animals are predators. So be it.
Well if you insist, but what else is “natural”? What else just is?
Sexual aggression is certainly “natural” for males of our species. It is a minority occurrence, to be sure, but rape happens, and it does serve an evolutionary function. When alternative sexual gestures fail, aggression for the end of procreation satisfies the needs of our “selfish genes”. The same is obviously true with violence, of course, and “out-grouping” (i.e bigotry). These are yet more “natural laws”, always-already present in nature.
I would hope, however, that those who use this “argument from nature” don’t also believe that rape, aggression, and racism are morally acceptable. If they are reasoning consistently, they must.
But we don’t reason consistently do we? We use arguments that get us what we want. And what those who throw “natural” around want is to exclude eating animals from the sphere of ethics altogether. So racism and war, while “natural”, are issues that we should ethically struggle with, but eating animals is really “natural”, beyond our ethical concern.
But it should be obvious that we can’t arbitrarily exclude some “natural” behaviors from ethics while still including others without begging the question: On what grounds are you deciding which “natural” behaviors are okay, and which are not? You are just assuming the answer to that question, but it needs to be defended.
In the final analysis, the inconsistent use of “natural” happens for one reason: because we want to keep eating animals.
In other words, the proponent of this argument is reasoning backwards: from a conclusion – “Milk is so tasty” – to the premise(s) that support that conclusion – “This ‘natural’ behavior is okay, but…that one’s not. No follow-up questions, please”.
That is intellectually and ethically dishonest.
Alex Melonas is a second-year Ph.D. student in political theory at Temple University in the US. He occasionally writes about animal rights at That Vegan Girl.
SEE ALSO: Humans did not evolve to eat meat
Add to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Comments (47)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Alex Melonas, 24 August 2010
@Sam: You're funny. Has your whole argument here been one big joke?
@Russell:
You wrote,
"In the end, you have to simply ASSERT the the premise that causing harm and death is always bad."
That is the straw man you continue to use, but you are half-right. I simply asserted (although I provided a metaphysical defense of that premise on past threads) that causing harm and death is bad, generally, as a principle. There isn't an impartial reason to qualify that prescription, in other words; that is how principles work. When you combine this principle with my absolute refutation of YOUR argument about the intrinsic value of "nature", what you call "absurd conclusions" are perfectly logical.
So given that the mentally handicapped, senile, and human babies can't enter into a "social contract" with you because they lack the requisite intellectual faculties, wouldn't it follow that you think that causing them harm and death isn't morally wrong? You must at least concede that you don't have direct obligations to babies and the mentally handicapped; that these humans are not members of the moral community, they are, rather, like nonhuman animals.
In the end, you haven’t responded to my original essay. It is clear that “nature” cannot be used as a premise to justify eating animals as both a matter of logic or morality. The is/ought fallacy cripples any such arguments, while the issue of morality makes the advocate of such a position seem monstrous.
@Russell:
You wrote,
"In the end, you have to simply ASSERT the the premise that causing harm and death is always bad."
That is the straw man you continue to use, but you are half-right. I simply asserted (although I provided a metaphysical defense of that premise on past threads) that causing harm and death is bad, generally, as a principle. There isn't an impartial reason to qualify that prescription, in other words; that is how principles work. When you combine this principle with my absolute refutation of YOUR argument about the intrinsic value of "nature", what you call "absurd conclusions" are perfectly logical.
So given that the mentally handicapped, senile, and human babies can't enter into a "social contract" with you because they lack the requisite intellectual faculties, wouldn't it follow that you think that causing them harm and death isn't morally wrong? You must at least concede that you don't have direct obligations to babies and the mentally handicapped; that these humans are not members of the moral community, they are, rather, like nonhuman animals.
In the end, you haven’t responded to my original essay. It is clear that “nature” cannot be used as a premise to justify eating animals as both a matter of logic or morality. The is/ought fallacy cripples any such arguments, while the issue of morality makes the advocate of such a position seem monstrous.
written by Russell Edwards, 23 August 2010
"In the end you simply have to reject the premise that causing harm and death are bad, generally."
... and I do reject that, in the absense of a social contract.
How about you? In the end, you have to simply ASSERT the the premise that causing harm and death is always bad.
You have not provided any reason for this assertion. I have demonstrated this assertion leads to manifestly absurd positions. You choose to reject this argument (apparently reality has no bearing upon moral considerations, far out, no wonder I stayed away from the humanities faculty...) but again provide no backup for your own.
You are running around in circles and have now come within a millimetre of taking on my position of moral relativism--- but still refuse to admit that your premise is also artbitrary, unprovable, and therefore useless for passing absolute moral judgement upon those who do not share your premise.
... and I do reject that, in the absense of a social contract.
How about you? In the end, you have to simply ASSERT the the premise that causing harm and death is always bad.
You have not provided any reason for this assertion. I have demonstrated this assertion leads to manifestly absurd positions. You choose to reject this argument (apparently reality has no bearing upon moral considerations, far out, no wonder I stayed away from the humanities faculty...) but again provide no backup for your own.
You are running around in circles and have now come within a millimetre of taking on my position of moral relativism--- but still refuse to admit that your premise is also artbitrary, unprovable, and therefore useless for passing absolute moral judgement upon those who do not share your premise.
written by sam, 23 August 2010
@alex Ah, a condescending vegan. Now I remember why I don't comment on places like this. I'm out, so take that as a win if you'd like.
Best of luck with trying to convince people they are ethically wrong. I'll do my best to show people one can be a both a vegan and not a dick, and that they can enjoy vegan food so tasty one's ethics don't even come into it.
Best of luck with trying to convince people they are ethically wrong. I'll do my best to show people one can be a both a vegan and not a dick, and that they can enjoy vegan food so tasty one's ethics don't even come into it.
written by Alex Melonas, 23 August 2010
@Russell: Your argument amounts to this: harm and death caused by predation is "vital" because you cannot conceive of an alternative, whereas human-human harm and death is not "vital" because you can conceive of an alternative history whereby the evolution of civilization proceeded amicably. My argument is simply this: because there isn't an intrinsic value to "nature" ("nature" is merely an "is", a claim I have defended ad nauseam to refute your assertion of “nature’s” self-evident value), if we could, if it were possible, to tinker, as it were, with "nature" so as to reduce the amount of harm and death caused, that would be a good thing, all things considered. So again, I am assigning negative value to harm and death, generally, as an impartial matter, and then reasoning to a conclusion.
To challenge my reasoning you cannot re-assert that harm and death in "nature" is really important, or that through harm and death evolution HAS proceeded as it does, because that is a non-issue; it is logically analogous to simply assert that the same is true for human-human relationships and therefore we can't talk about ethics. Both claims are factually true. This is a distinction, then, between prescription and description.
The problem with your argument could not be clearer then. To challenge my reasoning you are presuming, again, that "nature" is intrinsically good, but that is grounded on an is/ought fallacy, a fallacy I have exposed again and again throughout many threads. So unless you can defend that claim without the fallacy, which would mean that NOT tinkering with "nature" is the right thing to do because as it is it is good, you don't have a counter-argument. In the end you simply have to reject the premise that causing harm and death are bad, generally.
To challenge my reasoning you cannot re-assert that harm and death in "nature" is really important, or that through harm and death evolution HAS proceeded as it does, because that is a non-issue; it is logically analogous to simply assert that the same is true for human-human relationships and therefore we can't talk about ethics. Both claims are factually true. This is a distinction, then, between prescription and description.
The problem with your argument could not be clearer then. To challenge my reasoning you are presuming, again, that "nature" is intrinsically good, but that is grounded on an is/ought fallacy, a fallacy I have exposed again and again throughout many threads. So unless you can defend that claim without the fallacy, which would mean that NOT tinkering with "nature" is the right thing to do because as it is it is good, you don't have a counter-argument. In the end you simply have to reject the premise that causing harm and death are bad, generally.
written by Russell Edwards, 23 August 2010
Alex, if something is vital for the existence for all known life on Earth and you don't think it's plausible to assign positive value to it, sorry, you've lost all credibility. Besides which, my argument does not lie in conferring positive value to heterotrophy. My argument rests on the fact that it is NOT sensible to assign negative value to heterotrophy.
War and so forth have shaped civilisation and technology, no doubt, but there is no reason why some form of civilisation or society could not have formed. War and conflict serve a modifying role, not a creative role.
In contrast, a lack of predation would make for virtually no selection pressure and so no evolution. And a lack of heterotrophy would mean no energy flow in ecosystems and so no ecosystem. You probably would have ended up with a stalled process shortly after the development of the first autoreophs, with all carbon locked up in the form of static (dead or immortal) unicellular organisms, if you were lucky.
War and so forth have shaped civilisation and technology, no doubt, but there is no reason why some form of civilisation or society could not have formed. War and conflict serve a modifying role, not a creative role.
In contrast, a lack of predation would make for virtually no selection pressure and so no evolution. And a lack of heterotrophy would mean no energy flow in ecosystems and so no ecosystem. You probably would have ended up with a stalled process shortly after the development of the first autoreophs, with all carbon locked up in the form of static (dead or immortal) unicellular organisms, if you were lucky.
written by Alex Melonas, 22 August 2010
@Russell: The assignment of ANY value to ANY "natural" forces, if that assignment is arrived at because it is a "natural" (or as you put it, a "driving force", so really, really importantly "natural"), is an is/ought fallacy. You need to arrive at a positive evaluation of that "driving force" independently; that is, it being a "powerful driving force" is ethically irrelevant, a mere "is", conceptually distinct from an "ought" or positive evaluation. And this is precisely how I’ve shown that arguments such as “nature is intrinsically good” is philosophically unsound because as a matter of logic, the fact that X is a “driving force” does nothing to ground a positive/negative evaluation of X. And since you’ve never provided an independent argument for that positive evaluation, your argument fails logically.
History doesn't show that human-human violence, etc. happens "a lot", but that it is a fundamental element in the evolution of our species. To assert that this isn't true, or rather, that you can think of ways that it doesn't NEED to be true, is a non-starter. Without inter-species and human-human violence, human society would not be human society as we understand it today.
History doesn't show that human-human violence, etc. happens "a lot", but that it is a fundamental element in the evolution of our species. To assert that this isn't true, or rather, that you can think of ways that it doesn't NEED to be true, is a non-starter. Without inter-species and human-human violence, human society would not be human society as we understand it today.
written by Russell Edwards, 22 August 2010
Alex, just quickly.
1) '"Second, simply because harm and death are fundamentally creative forces” it does not follow that the assignment of a positive value to that force is logically valid; that is the is/ought fallacy.' This is not an is/ought fallacy. It is assigning positive value to a driving force resposible for the creation of all life as we know it. That is a metaphysical argument at least as powerful as the one you mount in order to cast all of creation as immoral.
2) "Third, you merely assert that harm and death are not necessary for social dynamics, while the historical record clearly belies that premise. Indeed, harm and death seem quite necessary for the “evolution” of human society. "
Why are they necessary? History shows they have happened a lot. However as far as I know, there is no reason to believe that humans harming each-other has enabled social development of a fundamentally different form than would otherwise have been possible. Contrast this to evolution of species and ecosystem dynamics. Neither could have arisen, AT ALL, without heterotrophy, according to our present understanding of evolution, natural selection and ecology.
1) '"Second, simply because harm and death are fundamentally creative forces” it does not follow that the assignment of a positive value to that force is logically valid; that is the is/ought fallacy.' This is not an is/ought fallacy. It is assigning positive value to a driving force resposible for the creation of all life as we know it. That is a metaphysical argument at least as powerful as the one you mount in order to cast all of creation as immoral.
2) "Third, you merely assert that harm and death are not necessary for social dynamics, while the historical record clearly belies that premise. Indeed, harm and death seem quite necessary for the “evolution” of human society. "
Why are they necessary? History shows they have happened a lot. However as far as I know, there is no reason to believe that humans harming each-other has enabled social development of a fundamentally different form than would otherwise have been possible. Contrast this to evolution of species and ecosystem dynamics. Neither could have arisen, AT ALL, without heterotrophy, according to our present understanding of evolution, natural selection and ecology.
written by Alex Melonas, 22 August 2010
@Sam: Indeed, Richard Dawkins is an omnivore. However, he explicitly A) rejects speciesism in "The God Delusion" and B) has argued that because Darwinian evolutionary destroys the foundation of "human special-ness", and because, as a consequentalist, reducing the suffering caused is an ethical end, veganism is a perfectly reasonable, and ethical, decision. If Dawkins was a more consistently ethical person, I have no doubt he would be a vegan; and I think he would concede that.
You seem to have had some trouble following my original argument. No, sexual aggression and inter-species violence is not unethical when practiced by nonhuman animals. (Nonhuman animals, like human babies and the mentally handicapped, are not "moral agents" like you and I.) "Out-grouping", or perhaps, a distrust of the Other (species groups, e.g.), is not unethical when practiced by chimpanzees or bonobos. However, it is empirically true that our nonhuman ancestors did and continue to do these things. And, because of Darwinian evolution, these impulses, or genetic inclinations, because of their evolutionary use, were selected for and are present in OUR physiological and psychological make-up. I merely state those as empirically verifiable facts, without any evaluative (or moral) overtones.
Now, moving beyond those facts, this is where yours and Russell's counter-arguments have problems. Whether or not those are facts, as an ethical matter, because of the is/ought fallacy, those "natural" behaviors are total non-issues. As a matter of logic, you cannot use facts like these to derive any ethical conclusions, such as eating animals is okay. Furthermore, as a matter of morality, if you will, because, assuming eating animals is "natural", without begging the question, you need to defend the claim that while eating animals is okay because it is "natural", our "natural" inclination to sexual aggression and "out-grouping" are not okay.
Finally, your computer analogy is a red herring for two reasons. First, you don't know where my computer was manufactured, nor do you know what energy sources I use. But more importantly, second, it is impossible to avoid using energy or computers today because alternatives simply do not exist. This is not true in the case of eating animals. In Western nations, alternative nutritional resources abound. And therefore, unlike using energy and computers, non-veganism is a choice, a choice that cannot be defended.
All your anger is amusing, but quite misplaced.
You seem to have had some trouble following my original argument. No, sexual aggression and inter-species violence is not unethical when practiced by nonhuman animals. (Nonhuman animals, like human babies and the mentally handicapped, are not "moral agents" like you and I.) "Out-grouping", or perhaps, a distrust of the Other (species groups, e.g.), is not unethical when practiced by chimpanzees or bonobos. However, it is empirically true that our nonhuman ancestors did and continue to do these things. And, because of Darwinian evolution, these impulses, or genetic inclinations, because of their evolutionary use, were selected for and are present in OUR physiological and psychological make-up. I merely state those as empirically verifiable facts, without any evaluative (or moral) overtones.
Now, moving beyond those facts, this is where yours and Russell's counter-arguments have problems. Whether or not those are facts, as an ethical matter, because of the is/ought fallacy, those "natural" behaviors are total non-issues. As a matter of logic, you cannot use facts like these to derive any ethical conclusions, such as eating animals is okay. Furthermore, as a matter of morality, if you will, because, assuming eating animals is "natural", without begging the question, you need to defend the claim that while eating animals is okay because it is "natural", our "natural" inclination to sexual aggression and "out-grouping" are not okay.
Finally, your computer analogy is a red herring for two reasons. First, you don't know where my computer was manufactured, nor do you know what energy sources I use. But more importantly, second, it is impossible to avoid using energy or computers today because alternatives simply do not exist. This is not true in the case of eating animals. In Western nations, alternative nutritional resources abound. And therefore, unlike using energy and computers, non-veganism is a choice, a choice that cannot be defended.
All your anger is amusing, but quite misplaced.
written by sam, 21 August 2010
Dawkins! My favorite meat eater. It's actually were I'm getting all of this from. Either I didn't write clearly enough you didn't read clearly enough - is outgrouping, sexual aggression (which is different from rape), and inter-species violence immoral or unethical for chimpanzees? No. It serves a purpose, and all of the chimps would die out without it. Sexual aggression, for example, works with chimps because their body and not their brain tells them to have sex. There's no rape there, it just looks violent to us, the same way we might see a bee and a flower as violent if we got up close. Do you see no difference between two tribes fighting over access to water and Napoleon conquering Europe? That tribal violence is necessary for the survival of the species. Outgrouping also worked when you spent your life with one group. You're showing your cards here - by equating sexually aggressive chimpanzees, where no one is being psychologically hurt, with rape, where someone is psychologically hurt, you pretty much show you can't distinguish between a human experience and non-human one. And again, racism wasn't a problem from tribes because there were no other races for most people. There were other tribes, and there was good reason not to fraternize. That's not racism, no matter what word you want to call it. Civilization doesn't have wars for scarce resources. They have wars to get more power. A subtle difference, and I'm sure you're smart enough to get it. Rape does not work in humans to promote procreation. Hell, most tribes didn't know sex and babies were connected. Everyone just had sex when they wanted, and some women had kids some of the time. Some tribes thought the best of multiple men went into one baby. Read Sex At Dawn. Fascinating stuff. Seriously,it's got nothing to do with veganism, it's just awesome: http://www.sexatdawn.com/
You're putting a modern human spin on nature. Sexual aggression in chimps is not rape (you don't really think that, do you?). Tribal fighting over scarce resources is not bombing Iraqis. Distrusting someone not a member of the only tribe of people you've ever known is not the same as treating your neighbor differently from you because of his or her skin color. It's the difference between cutting a POW's balls off and neutering a dog. It's the difference between a human mother dumping her baby in the garbage and a fox leaving a small newborn to die if it's not strong enough. Who do you feel worse for, the gazelle that's killed, or the lion that starves?
"as I’ve clearly shown in the essay." For someone who's clearly shown something, there sure do seem to be a lot of people arguing with you. So far with the exception of the angry, misspelled posts of Pamela, no one on this lefty site seems to agree with you. Maybe when you get to third year ethics you'll do better.
"Your example of buying clothing from child slaves is quite interesting. Wouldn’t it be ethical NOT to buy that clothing because of all the harm and death involved?" Yes! I'm glad you agree with me. Now, computers are made by Chinese women who have less than slaves, and get cancer from building the chips for 12 or more hours a day. And the electricity used to keep us online is destroying the environment, which will eventually kill many animals (human animals too!). So it's ethical to NOT spend all your time online having arguments with people. Turn your computer off. Never buy another one. It's the ethical thing to do.
"At least you concede that you are not persuaded by reason and logic. Most humans are not that self-effaciing (sic)." Nice. Did you learn to attack character in subtle ways at Temple, too? Is that a minor? I said my reasoning was emotional, not that logic didn't persuade me. I said that one can use reason and logic to convince someone to eat meat, AND to convince someone not to eat meat. You can use reason and logic to convince anyone of anything. In the book The Nazi Doctors, there's a great quote: "from insane premises to monstrous conclusions, Hitler was relentlessly logical." Your logic is great. And while your premises aren't as bad as Hitler's, and won't lead somewhere monstrous, they still don't seem to be based on something sustainable.
Again, I'm a veggie, but Russell out argued you easily. Luckily for some critters, some emotional reactions trump my logical ones.
You're putting a modern human spin on nature. Sexual aggression in chimps is not rape (you don't really think that, do you?). Tribal fighting over scarce resources is not bombing Iraqis. Distrusting someone not a member of the only tribe of people you've ever known is not the same as treating your neighbor differently from you because of his or her skin color. It's the difference between cutting a POW's balls off and neutering a dog. It's the difference between a human mother dumping her baby in the garbage and a fox leaving a small newborn to die if it's not strong enough. Who do you feel worse for, the gazelle that's killed, or the lion that starves?
"as I’ve clearly shown in the essay." For someone who's clearly shown something, there sure do seem to be a lot of people arguing with you. So far with the exception of the angry, misspelled posts of Pamela, no one on this lefty site seems to agree with you. Maybe when you get to third year ethics you'll do better.
"Your example of buying clothing from child slaves is quite interesting. Wouldn’t it be ethical NOT to buy that clothing because of all the harm and death involved?" Yes! I'm glad you agree with me. Now, computers are made by Chinese women who have less than slaves, and get cancer from building the chips for 12 or more hours a day. And the electricity used to keep us online is destroying the environment, which will eventually kill many animals (human animals too!). So it's ethical to NOT spend all your time online having arguments with people. Turn your computer off. Never buy another one. It's the ethical thing to do.
"At least you concede that you are not persuaded by reason and logic. Most humans are not that self-effaciing (sic)." Nice. Did you learn to attack character in subtle ways at Temple, too? Is that a minor? I said my reasoning was emotional, not that logic didn't persuade me. I said that one can use reason and logic to convince someone to eat meat, AND to convince someone not to eat meat. You can use reason and logic to convince anyone of anything. In the book The Nazi Doctors, there's a great quote: "from insane premises to monstrous conclusions, Hitler was relentlessly logical." Your logic is great. And while your premises aren't as bad as Hitler's, and won't lead somewhere monstrous, they still don't seem to be based on something sustainable.
Again, I'm a veggie, but Russell out argued you easily. Luckily for some critters, some emotional reactions trump my logical ones.
written by Alex Melonas, 21 August 2010
@Sam: If your contention is that “out-grouping” (i.e., racism), or sexual aggression to the point of rape are not “natural”, that is, clearly evolutionary advantageous and practices common in our closest non-human ancestors, then that will be your little secret. Simply because these practices or inclinations have cultural overlays it does not follow that they are culturally grounded. Across-group violence over scarce resources is a common practice in chimpanzee groups, as is sexual aggression, and inter-species violence. These practices are, therefore, genetically grounded. Read Richard Dawkins, or Frans de Wall for clear evidence of these practices in our primate ancestors.
Second: Ethics doesn’t have to be objectively true for it to have moral purchase. Simply because ethics are “culturally invented”, that doesn’t mean they don’t matter. I might suggest, as de Wall does, that we have empathetic genetic inclinations as well, but those are colored by other biases. And that is where reason and logic come in. But you need to provide a defense grounded in “nature” for ethics that does not fall prey to the is/ought fallacy, as I’ve clearly shown in the essay.
Third: Your example of buying clothing from child slaves is quite interesting. Wouldn’t it be ethical NOT to buy that clothing because of all the harm and death involved?
Fourth: At least you concede that you are not persuaded by reason and logic. Most humans are not that self-effaciing.
Second: Ethics doesn’t have to be objectively true for it to have moral purchase. Simply because ethics are “culturally invented”, that doesn’t mean they don’t matter. I might suggest, as de Wall does, that we have empathetic genetic inclinations as well, but those are colored by other biases. And that is where reason and logic come in. But you need to provide a defense grounded in “nature” for ethics that does not fall prey to the is/ought fallacy, as I’ve clearly shown in the essay.
Third: Your example of buying clothing from child slaves is quite interesting. Wouldn’t it be ethical NOT to buy that clothing because of all the harm and death involved?
Fourth: At least you concede that you are not persuaded by reason and logic. Most humans are not that self-effaciing.
written by Alex Melonas, 21 August 2010
@Russell: First, so it would follow that if the human slaves were non-“moral agents”, say, a baby or mentally handicapped human, then the ethical dilemma wouldn’t arise because they cannot enter into a social contract? Or is “moral agency” a sufficient but not necessary characteristic for entrance into the moral community. Second, simply because harm and death are fundamentally creative forces” it does not follow that the assignment of a positive value to that force is logically valid; that is the is/ought fallacy. Third, you merely assert that harm and death are not necessary for social dynamics, while the historical record clearly belies that premise. Indeed, harm and death seem quite necessary for the “evolution” of human society. I would maintain, then, that reducing that harm and death ought to be the practical moral goal.
@Patrick: A response to external stimuli does not imply that the organism is consciously “sensing” that stimuli. The scientific principle of parsimony, rather, would suggest that that organism is merely functionally organized if that same organism is non-sentient. Sentience implies a “mind”, or subjective awareness of the stimuli. Unless you can provide a) a deduction suggesting otherwise or b) empirical evidence to support your contention.
@Patrick: A response to external stimuli does not imply that the organism is consciously “sensing” that stimuli. The scientific principle of parsimony, rather, would suggest that that organism is merely functionally organized if that same organism is non-sentient. Sentience implies a “mind”, or subjective awareness of the stimuli. Unless you can provide a) a deduction suggesting otherwise or b) empirical evidence to support your contention.
written by sam, 21 August 2010
I think the problem with this kind of argument is that you, without meaning to, prove that the natural is better than ethical. It makes Ethics seem like nothing more than a system we invented so that our actions wouldn't come back to harm us.
I think the other problem with this article is that it's premise it's premise assumes that most people don't see a difference between what's natural and what is. People aren't stupid and selfish, as this article subtly presumes, they are just in-eloquent.
When people say "natural" they mean "what happens without the influence of civilization." You say that war, racism, and rape are natural, but you don't really define or prove that they are. War as we know it didn't exist within tribes, if we define the wars of civilization as one cultures attempt to completely destroy another one. Tribes fought over basic resources and to prove that they were capable of defending themselves if needed, but they didn't try to wipe another one out based on an idea. Racism didn't exist either, because you never met anyone outside of your tribe or the nearest tribes - in other words, everyone looked the same in their corner of the world, and you only ever met so many people in your life. The fear of the other may have been a good thing then. It's only after civilization where different types of people are forced to meet each other, and that natural fear is perverted. And according to some authors, like the authors of Sex at Dawn, tribal cultures had a much freer attitude towards sex, since there was no property to pass down to children, therefore no reason for men to attempt to control a woman's sexuality. In this kind of freer society, there could very well be less or no rape, as a rapist would probably have harder time getting away with it in a smaller tribe of people - why risk being forced out of the tribe to die for hurting another member of your tribe? Same goes for murder. If you killed someone in the tribe, you'd be on your own when the tribe abandons you.
What does that have to do with veganism? Well, what I'm getting at is that what you've chosen as solid examples of "what is natural" aren't necessarily natural, they are products of a civilization that started with agriculture. They are truly straw man arguments, because you've assumed no difference between life before and after civilization, and then you've chosen the worst aspects of civilization, called it natural, and said it's bad.
Your further slavery analogy is also problematic because you can use that logic for anything. If you buy clothes made by poor children in another country, you therefore support that system, and which is 99.999% bad for humans and the environment in the long run, just as chattel slavery was, therefore, people who buy most clothing in the country looooooooooooove slavery.
And most people know the difference between what's natural and what is. Hunting is natural. A gun is an invention of civilization. Eating fruit from a tree is natural. Creating a monoculture to better grow soybeans is not. Having sex is natural. Rape is not. Fighting over limited resources is natural. Destroying another culture is not.
That may mean nothing to the ethicist, but ethics probably means little to nature, and to most people. You could rename this article Nature isn't Ethical, but So What?
Now here's where I'm gonna sound like a hypocrite - I'm vegetarian, and I'm moving towards being a vegan. Mostly because I am against the factory farming system. It's an almost completely emotional reason - i feel bad when I see animals hurt. And i live a super-civilized life any way (that's not necessarily a good thing): if civilization ended, I'd be the first in line to ask Russel here for some food, cause I know nothing about how to survive with out supermarkets.
The problem with trying to use reason and ethics to convince people into veganism is that you can just as easily convince people out of veganism by using reasoning and ethics. Russel's reasoning is just as solid as yours, Alex. In fact maybe moreso. But I'm gonna stick with my path to veganism because of how I feel - in spite of alex's faulty arguments.
I think the other problem with this article is that it's premise it's premise assumes that most people don't see a difference between what's natural and what is. People aren't stupid and selfish, as this article subtly presumes, they are just in-eloquent.
When people say "natural" they mean "what happens without the influence of civilization." You say that war, racism, and rape are natural, but you don't really define or prove that they are. War as we know it didn't exist within tribes, if we define the wars of civilization as one cultures attempt to completely destroy another one. Tribes fought over basic resources and to prove that they were capable of defending themselves if needed, but they didn't try to wipe another one out based on an idea. Racism didn't exist either, because you never met anyone outside of your tribe or the nearest tribes - in other words, everyone looked the same in their corner of the world, and you only ever met so many people in your life. The fear of the other may have been a good thing then. It's only after civilization where different types of people are forced to meet each other, and that natural fear is perverted. And according to some authors, like the authors of Sex at Dawn, tribal cultures had a much freer attitude towards sex, since there was no property to pass down to children, therefore no reason for men to attempt to control a woman's sexuality. In this kind of freer society, there could very well be less or no rape, as a rapist would probably have harder time getting away with it in a smaller tribe of people - why risk being forced out of the tribe to die for hurting another member of your tribe? Same goes for murder. If you killed someone in the tribe, you'd be on your own when the tribe abandons you.
What does that have to do with veganism? Well, what I'm getting at is that what you've chosen as solid examples of "what is natural" aren't necessarily natural, they are products of a civilization that started with agriculture. They are truly straw man arguments, because you've assumed no difference between life before and after civilization, and then you've chosen the worst aspects of civilization, called it natural, and said it's bad.
Your further slavery analogy is also problematic because you can use that logic for anything. If you buy clothes made by poor children in another country, you therefore support that system, and which is 99.999% bad for humans and the environment in the long run, just as chattel slavery was, therefore, people who buy most clothing in the country looooooooooooove slavery.
And most people know the difference between what's natural and what is. Hunting is natural. A gun is an invention of civilization. Eating fruit from a tree is natural. Creating a monoculture to better grow soybeans is not. Having sex is natural. Rape is not. Fighting over limited resources is natural. Destroying another culture is not.
That may mean nothing to the ethicist, but ethics probably means little to nature, and to most people. You could rename this article Nature isn't Ethical, but So What?
Now here's where I'm gonna sound like a hypocrite - I'm vegetarian, and I'm moving towards being a vegan. Mostly because I am against the factory farming system. It's an almost completely emotional reason - i feel bad when I see animals hurt. And i live a super-civilized life any way (that's not necessarily a good thing): if civilization ended, I'd be the first in line to ask Russel here for some food, cause I know nothing about how to survive with out supermarkets.
The problem with trying to use reason and ethics to convince people into veganism is that you can just as easily convince people out of veganism by using reasoning and ethics. Russel's reasoning is just as solid as yours, Alex. In fact maybe moreso. But I'm gonna stick with my path to veganism because of how I feel - in spite of alex's faulty arguments.
written by Patrick, 21 August 2010
Al, I see your point regarding sentience. Having a nervous system makes us different because we can feel pain/suffering and react to it. However, if we remove ourselves from the notion that the nervous system is different than other signaling mechanisms organisms use to sense and react to their environment then the dissimilarity fades. Your nervous system is a solution our species has come up with through evolution to react to the environment in order to reproduce and procreate. Pain, one of its survival tools, is a population of neurons firing to signal a detrimental situation. Although our perception is of pain is excruciating, it is nothing more than a population of neurons firing- a physical signaling mechanism that signals harm. That is all. Plants also have signaling mechanisms that signal harm and allow them to react accordingly. There is an abundant amount of research on this. This may be too "hippie" but in the end weather or not we have a nervous system or not, all life forms sense the environment and react to it- especially the harmful stuff. I am accepting of the sentience argument; I just want to point out that it’s basically saying, "I want to protect the organisms that have the same harm-signaling and survival mechanisms as I do. "
written by Russell Edwards, 21 August 2010
Firstly, the exact same argument does not apply to animals, because human slaves are moral agents and therefore can consensually enter into social contract, and unlike non-agent human beings, they have not been written into the contract.
Secondly, the relevance of the "perfect world" is not to serve as a straw man. The point is that heterotrophy (harm and death to organisms) plays a constructive role in evolution and in ecosystem dynamics, without which there would be no evolution or ecosystems. You assign negative value to it, yet it is the basis of life on Earth. The extreme case of a dead harm-free world aside, how can it possibly make sense to negatively value one of the fundamental creative forces for all life?
Contrast this to the moral questions of interpersonal relationships. Harm and exploitation are in no way essential to social dynamics and they serve no constructive role that could not equally be served by cooperation. Hence there is no fundamental difficulty with assigning negative value to harming another person.
Secondly, the relevance of the "perfect world" is not to serve as a straw man. The point is that heterotrophy (harm and death to organisms) plays a constructive role in evolution and in ecosystem dynamics, without which there would be no evolution or ecosystems. You assign negative value to it, yet it is the basis of life on Earth. The extreme case of a dead harm-free world aside, how can it possibly make sense to negatively value one of the fundamental creative forces for all life?
Contrast this to the moral questions of interpersonal relationships. Harm and exploitation are in no way essential to social dynamics and they serve no constructive role that could not equally be served by cooperation. Hence there is no fundamental difficulty with assigning negative value to harming another person.
written by Alex Melonas, 20 August 2010
@Russell: Your response straw man's my argument. Conceiving of an abstract end like a "harm-free world" makes sense heuristically; however, it presumes that "perfection" is the end-goal of moral theory. But that is clearly a straw man of any moral theory. To wit, when agreeing to a "social contract", you and I might decide that because suffering is bad, and so we ought to agree to the following prohibition: causing another to suffer is wrong. However, in the practical (that is, beyond the abstraction that is a "social contract") day-to-day living with that prohibition, it stands to reason that I will inevitably cause you some suffering because A) you are sentient and B) we are interconnected. Therefore, that abstract prohibition takes on a practical element in the form of “no unnecessary suffering”; likewise with prohibiting causing harm and death. For sentient, interconnected animals, some harm and death is inevitable. So we ought to reduce, to the greatest extend possible, the unnecessary harm and death we cause. Veganism, because it aims to do just that, logically follows.
As an example, here’s an argument against human chattel slavery (from “unpopular vegan essays”): 99.999% of our uses of human slaves are unnecessary by any coherent concept of the word necessary. 99% of our uses of human chattel slaves harm them. Unnecessary harm is morally wrong. Therefore, 99% of our uses of human slaves are morally wrong.
The same argument against nonhuman chattel slavery: 99.999% of our uses of animals are unnecessary by any coherent concept of the word necessary. 99% of our uses of animals harm them. Unnecessary harm is morally wrong. Therefore, 99% of our uses of animals are morally wrong.
All of the arguments for animal use can be applied with equal force and cogency to the use of human chattel slaves. When we defend animal use, we necessarily defend human chattel slavery. Human chattel slavery benefitted many people greatly throughout human history, but 99.999% of it was not necessary; therefore morally wrong. The exact same argument holds for animal use.
As an example, here’s an argument against human chattel slavery (from “unpopular vegan essays”): 99.999% of our uses of human slaves are unnecessary by any coherent concept of the word necessary. 99% of our uses of human chattel slaves harm them. Unnecessary harm is morally wrong. Therefore, 99% of our uses of human slaves are morally wrong.
The same argument against nonhuman chattel slavery: 99.999% of our uses of animals are unnecessary by any coherent concept of the word necessary. 99% of our uses of animals harm them. Unnecessary harm is morally wrong. Therefore, 99% of our uses of animals are morally wrong.
All of the arguments for animal use can be applied with equal force and cogency to the use of human chattel slaves. When we defend animal use, we necessarily defend human chattel slavery. Human chattel slavery benefitted many people greatly throughout human history, but 99.999% of it was not necessary; therefore morally wrong. The exact same argument holds for animal use.
written by Russell Edwards, 19 August 2010
Not quite Alex;
"I, Russell Edwards, do not consider heterotrophy to be morally problematic unless it violates a social contract."
I think you will find that most people would feel the same way.
That may seem bizarre to you as you are fixated on the organism while ignoring structures both smaller (genes, cells) and larger (ecosystems) upon which organisms are mutually dependent for their very existence. Without harm and death there could be no heterotrophs. Without harm and death there could be no evolution of genes and species. Your wish for a harm-free world is a wish for a life-free world.
"I, Russell Edwards, do not consider heterotrophy to be morally problematic unless it violates a social contract."
I think you will find that most people would feel the same way.
That may seem bizarre to you as you are fixated on the organism while ignoring structures both smaller (genes, cells) and larger (ecosystems) upon which organisms are mutually dependent for their very existence. Without harm and death there could be no heterotrophs. Without harm and death there could be no evolution of genes and species. Your wish for a harm-free world is a wish for a life-free world.
written by Alex Melonas, 19 August 2010
@Russell: The principle that causing harm and death is morally wrong doesn't have to be objectively true for it to have moral purchase. I could defend a metaphysical foundation for the principle, as I did on another thread, but that isn't necessary. If you reject the claim that causing harm and death are bad, then so be it. But at least assert that: "I, Russell Edwards, do not find causing harm and death morally problematic."
I understand why you use "nature" as a premise, however, I don't understand why you can't refute my counter-argument (i.e., the is/ought fallacy). Furthermore, veganism is explicitly a response to my argument refuting the intrinsic value of "nature", if you couple veganism with the acknowledgement that intervening in "nature", which I've shown again and again doesn't have intrinsic value, would cause more harm and death, all things considered, because of human fallibility.
I understand why you use "nature" as a premise, however, I don't understand why you can't refute my counter-argument (i.e., the is/ought fallacy). Furthermore, veganism is explicitly a response to my argument refuting the intrinsic value of "nature", if you couple veganism with the acknowledgement that intervening in "nature", which I've shown again and again doesn't have intrinsic value, would cause more harm and death, all things considered, because of human fallibility.
written by Russell Edwards, 19 August 2010
Alex, you still state your moral "predation=bad" premise as if it were fact, with no justification, yet deny my right to do the same with "nature=good".
You say that "harm and death ... triggers my moral sympathies" and "harm and death is problematic". This is a statement of your personal value system, but you are speaking as if it is objective truth.
In contrast, I am aware that "nature=good" is a personal ethic I have chosen, which is not universal and ought not necessarily be so. My decision to hunt and eat meat stands as a valid choice perfectly well without this ethic. It is neither good, nor bad. It simply is, the same anything else I do that is not the subject of social contract.
As I have stated repeatedly, I raise the issue of nature for two reasons.
Firstly to show that your philosophy is absurdly arrogant, for passing judgement over all of creation and deeming it "problematic". This is not a case of "nature=good" conflicting with "harm=bad". It's just saying that amongst moral philosophies designed from a position of potential flexibility in its choices of premises or axioms, yours is particularly poor because its pronouncements are thoroughly and fundamentally useless. It does not indicate a practical course of action that would in any way significantly change the moral status of the world, even if every single moral agent followed it.
Secondly, it just to point out that it is extraordinarily disingenuous of animal rights activists to infiltrate environmental organisations when the animal rights philosophy is fundamentally opposed to the central ethic of environmentalism. This is deceitful and insidious and, given the popularity of the nature ethic nowadays, I really hope some awareness of this issue can be raised. More broadly I hope that all environmentally conscious people will soon come to understand the fundamental threat to their values that exists in animal rights activism.
You say that "harm and death ... triggers my moral sympathies" and "harm and death is problematic". This is a statement of your personal value system, but you are speaking as if it is objective truth.
In contrast, I am aware that "nature=good" is a personal ethic I have chosen, which is not universal and ought not necessarily be so. My decision to hunt and eat meat stands as a valid choice perfectly well without this ethic. It is neither good, nor bad. It simply is, the same anything else I do that is not the subject of social contract.
As I have stated repeatedly, I raise the issue of nature for two reasons.
Firstly to show that your philosophy is absurdly arrogant, for passing judgement over all of creation and deeming it "problematic". This is not a case of "nature=good" conflicting with "harm=bad". It's just saying that amongst moral philosophies designed from a position of potential flexibility in its choices of premises or axioms, yours is particularly poor because its pronouncements are thoroughly and fundamentally useless. It does not indicate a practical course of action that would in any way significantly change the moral status of the world, even if every single moral agent followed it.
Secondly, it just to point out that it is extraordinarily disingenuous of animal rights activists to infiltrate environmental organisations when the animal rights philosophy is fundamentally opposed to the central ethic of environmentalism. This is deceitful and insidious and, given the popularity of the nature ethic nowadays, I really hope some awareness of this issue can be raised. More broadly I hope that all environmentally conscious people will soon come to understand the fundamental threat to their values that exists in animal rights activism.
written by Alex Melonas, 19 August 2010
@Russell: Beyond failing to justify deriving evaluative claims from factual assertions about "nature", your "counter-argument" makes very little sense. I can't follow it, so it is somewhat difficult to respond. But I'll try for the sake of argument:
1) "Ecosystem participants" are "part of my scope of judgment" (whatever that means?), because some human animals, who are "ecosystem participants" are "moral agents", and therefore, can be judged as acting ethically/unethically. The philosophical point is this: there are "moral agents" and non-"moral agents", but that distinction doesn't track along the species barrier; that is, there are many human animal "ecosystem participants" who are beyond the scope of ethical judgment.
2) ALL predation "concerns me" because, as I stated clearly again and again on other threads, the necessary harm and death that is inherent to predation triggers my moral sympathies. So, it isn't only human animal predation, but all predation, that raises an ethical dilemma because causing harm and death is problematic. Furthermore, since "nature" isn't intrinsically good, another claim I defended ad nauseam on other threads (note: I never asserted that as "self-evident"; I reasoned to that conclusion), if it were practically feasible, without causing greater harm and death, ending predation, all things considered, would be a good thing.
1) "Ecosystem participants" are "part of my scope of judgment" (whatever that means?), because some human animals, who are "ecosystem participants" are "moral agents", and therefore, can be judged as acting ethically/unethically. The philosophical point is this: there are "moral agents" and non-"moral agents", but that distinction doesn't track along the species barrier; that is, there are many human animal "ecosystem participants" who are beyond the scope of ethical judgment.
2) ALL predation "concerns me" because, as I stated clearly again and again on other threads, the necessary harm and death that is inherent to predation triggers my moral sympathies. So, it isn't only human animal predation, but all predation, that raises an ethical dilemma because causing harm and death is problematic. Furthermore, since "nature" isn't intrinsically good, another claim I defended ad nauseam on other threads (note: I never asserted that as "self-evident"; I reasoned to that conclusion), if it were practically feasible, without causing greater harm and death, ending predation, all things considered, would be a good thing.
written by Russell Edwards, 19 August 2010
Pamela, I'm not the one trying to force 99% of the population to follow my command by force of law.
written by Pamela., 18 August 2010
Russell you haven't changed at all have you. I remember you soap-boxing from years ago in another forum, doing the exact same things in that exact same condescending manner. You are not the omniscient being you believe yourself to be, nor are you ever-so superior to anybody else, you just need to open your mind instead of your mouth sometimes.
written by Russell Edwards, 18 August 2010
Alex, those comments were directed towards Pamela, who was trying to argue that it's not natural for humans to eat animals. You and I both know this isn't the case but clearly Pamela needs more convincing.
My arguments with you are further down the page, as three points. To remind you, 1) you say ecosystem participants are not part in the scope of your judgement, but arbitrarily refuse to grant humans the status of equal ecosystem participants, 2) you say ecosystem participants are not in the scope, yet you say predation by nonhumans "concerns" you-- why? and 3) you complain that it's not valid to arbitrarily assign nature with positive value, yet you cannot justify animal predation being given negative value. In other discussions you have claimed it as "self-evident". Ding ding, there's your arbitrary axiom from which follows a philosophy carefully staged to justify your personal bias.
My arguments with you are further down the page, as three points. To remind you, 1) you say ecosystem participants are not part in the scope of your judgement, but arbitrarily refuse to grant humans the status of equal ecosystem participants, 2) you say ecosystem participants are not in the scope, yet you say predation by nonhumans "concerns" you-- why? and 3) you complain that it's not valid to arbitrarily assign nature with positive value, yet you cannot justify animal predation being given negative value. In other discussions you have claimed it as "self-evident". Ding ding, there's your arbitrary axiom from which follows a philosophy carefully staged to justify your personal bias.
written by Alex Melonas, 18 August 2010
Russell wrote:
"Hunting was a fundamental aspect of human behaviour during the period that our species emerged. This, to me, seems a pretty good justification for considering meat to be part of the natural diet of Homo sapiens, and hunting to be part of the natural behaviour of Homo sapiens."
My essay clearly refutes this point Russell, if, and only if, you intend to use this fact, this "is", as a premise to justify eating animals. That is a well-worn, logical fallacy, and you haven't done anything throughout this thread to justify your move over the is/ought gap.
If you are simply insisting on the empirical matter, then okay; but like other empirical matters, our species' "out-grouping" tendencies and the aggression that followed, those empirical matters are irrelevant as a matter of ethics.
"Hunting was a fundamental aspect of human behaviour during the period that our species emerged. This, to me, seems a pretty good justification for considering meat to be part of the natural diet of Homo sapiens, and hunting to be part of the natural behaviour of Homo sapiens."
My essay clearly refutes this point Russell, if, and only if, you intend to use this fact, this "is", as a premise to justify eating animals. That is a well-worn, logical fallacy, and you haven't done anything throughout this thread to justify your move over the is/ought gap.
If you are simply insisting on the empirical matter, then okay; but like other empirical matters, our species' "out-grouping" tendencies and the aggression that followed, those empirical matters are irrelevant as a matter of ethics.
written by Russell Edwards, 18 August 2010
I'm not twisting anything, Pamela. I never claimed that ALL humans ate meat. That was your little fabrication in order to be able to claim that just because not everyone ate meat, eating meat is not natural. Anthropologists consider hunting to be a virtually ubiquitous aspect of pre-agrarian societies. This is why they talk about "hunter-gatherer" societies. Hunting was a fundamental aspect of human behaviour during the period that our species emerged. This, to me, seems a pretty good justification for considering meat to be part of the natural diet of Homo sapiens, and hunting to be part of the natural behaviour of Homo sapiens.
Of course I am defensive-- I and all non-followers of your cult are under attack. It's an attack on our way of life, backed up by an attempt to outlaw it through the coercive power invested in the state through law enforcement. I bet if someone was hellbent on banning vegetarianism, you'd be pretty defensive about your choices also.
Of course I am defensive-- I and all non-followers of your cult are under attack. It's an attack on our way of life, backed up by an attempt to outlaw it through the coercive power invested in the state through law enforcement. I bet if someone was hellbent on banning vegetarianism, you'd be pretty defensive about your choices also.
written by Pamela., 17 August 2010
Russell you're still deliberately twisting my words and reading assumptions into them which aren't there. You seem to be good at making assumptions like the one that every human being who ever lived ate meat.
written by Russell Edwards, 17 August 2010
LOL Pamela, SOME humans also didn't have sex or breastfeed. Does that make sex and breastfeeding unnatural?
written by Pamela., 17 August 2010
Patrick, we animals have a spine with a nervous system which sends pain signals to our brains. That's the difference between us and plants.
written by Pamela., 17 August 2010
Wrong Russell. SOME humans ate meat and others didn't. We cannot assume that all humans, for millions of years, ate meat. There were many tribes of people who did not eat animals. Just as there are many species of animals that do not eat other animals. I realise that some meat eaters are desperately defensive of their meat addiction but we cannot make assumptions that all humans have always eaten dead animals simply to justify our own unhealthy life choice.
written by Russell Edwards, 17 August 2010
P.S. "The voice of logic", yes, meat eaters do salivate and get hungry on seeing butchered meat, more so when seeing and smelling it cooking (which again, has been done long enough to be encoded in our genes). Why do you think spit roasts and barbecues are so popular?
As for repressed guilt and so-on, nonsense. I am a former vegan myself. I made a conscious decision to resume eating meat and take up hunting when I decided to let go of the guilt I felt for belonging to Homo sapiens. Deep down I know it is natural to hunt and eat meat. My sense send reward signals when I see, smell or taste meat. As a boy, like a large proportion of other people I have since discussed this with, I instinctively fashioned my own weapons and attempted to hunt despite active discouragement from my parents. When I hunt I am part of the ecosystem and am doing exactly what large numbers of other animals around me are doing. Nothing could possibly be more natural. I am in deliberately absolute full and complete cognizance of everything that meat eating entails-- it is the main reason I hunt, in fact, to make sure there's no way I can fall back into fantasy land of unthinking meat-purchasing or of vegetarianism.
As for personal attacks, not at all. I am attacking your philosophy, not your person or personality. I would be quite happy to let you lot live in your fantasy land if you'd keep your nonsense to yourself. But the fact is that most of you are activists-- you are actively engaged with trying to bring about legal restrictions on the rights of human animals to express their natural behaviour. It is a liberty issue for me and so long as people are trying to restrict my liberty and those of our entire species, I will fight them on every front I can.
As for repressed guilt and so-on, nonsense. I am a former vegan myself. I made a conscious decision to resume eating meat and take up hunting when I decided to let go of the guilt I felt for belonging to Homo sapiens. Deep down I know it is natural to hunt and eat meat. My sense send reward signals when I see, smell or taste meat. As a boy, like a large proportion of other people I have since discussed this with, I instinctively fashioned my own weapons and attempted to hunt despite active discouragement from my parents. When I hunt I am part of the ecosystem and am doing exactly what large numbers of other animals around me are doing. Nothing could possibly be more natural. I am in deliberately absolute full and complete cognizance of everything that meat eating entails-- it is the main reason I hunt, in fact, to make sure there's no way I can fall back into fantasy land of unthinking meat-purchasing or of vegetarianism.
As for personal attacks, not at all. I am attacking your philosophy, not your person or personality. I would be quite happy to let you lot live in your fantasy land if you'd keep your nonsense to yourself. But the fact is that most of you are activists-- you are actively engaged with trying to bring about legal restrictions on the rights of human animals to express their natural behaviour. It is a liberty issue for me and so long as people are trying to restrict my liberty and those of our entire species, I will fight them on every front I can.
written by Russell Edwards, 17 August 2010
The voice of logic says "I've never witnessed a human run down an animal, kill it by piercing the jugular with their 'canine' teeth, then proceed to rend the flesh with teeth and claws, eating the bloody flesh and entrails."
I suggest this person google "persistence hunting". There are some good articles and videos available on it. It has even been suggested that our upright posture co-evolved with hunting as it gives us greater endurance than a quadruped.
Likewise, the ability to design and use tools (technology) and fire are believed to have co-evolved along with hunting and meat eating. So you may be unlikely to see a human hunter using their teeth to kill and eating raw flesh-- using weapons and cooking the flesh is the way it's been done for millions of years.
Pamela asks what's natural and what's not. I'd say what evidence shows that humans have done for millions of years, before and after the development of agriculture and civilisation, could fairly be defined as natural. Also what we can observe other animals doing in their billions every day.
I suggest this person google "persistence hunting". There are some good articles and videos available on it. It has even been suggested that our upright posture co-evolved with hunting as it gives us greater endurance than a quadruped.
Likewise, the ability to design and use tools (technology) and fire are believed to have co-evolved along with hunting and meat eating. So you may be unlikely to see a human hunter using their teeth to kill and eating raw flesh-- using weapons and cooking the flesh is the way it's been done for millions of years.
Pamela asks what's natural and what's not. I'd say what evidence shows that humans have done for millions of years, before and after the development of agriculture and civilisation, could fairly be defined as natural. Also what we can observe other animals doing in their billions every day.
written by Pamela., 17 August 2010
Who SAYS it's 'natural' to eat animals? In whose grand, all-knowing book? Who's the big 'What is Natural & what isn't?' Sheriff?
written by The voice of logic, 17 August 2010
I totally disagree with the premise that eating animals is natural. I defy any human to walk into a butcher shop and start salivating at the smell and sight of the caracces hanging on hooks. Walk into a fruit shop, on the other hand, and your senses will immediately be overwhelmed with the desire to consume food.
Humans are also not naturally equipped to kill and consume animals. Lot's of meat eaters call themselves carnivores and use the lame "why do yout hink we CANINE teeth" line. I've never witnessed a human run down an animal, kill it by piercing the jugular with their 'canine' teeth, then proceed to rend the flesh with teeth and claws, eating the bloody flesh and entrails. This is natural behaviour for a true carnivore, but not for a natural herbivore, which humans undoubtedly are.
The meat eaters can bang on all they like and launch their personal attacks against me and vegans in general, but we all know that what I write is the truth. You can build up all the psychological barriers you like to allow you to indulge in your unnatural practices without feeling guilt, but deep down you all know that what you are doing is not natural. I wish meat eaters would just be honest about eating flesh, because they like the taste of it, and stop trying to justify their morbid addiction as being some sick type of natural behaviour.
Humans are also not naturally equipped to kill and consume animals. Lot's of meat eaters call themselves carnivores and use the lame "why do yout hink we CANINE teeth" line. I've never witnessed a human run down an animal, kill it by piercing the jugular with their 'canine' teeth, then proceed to rend the flesh with teeth and claws, eating the bloody flesh and entrails. This is natural behaviour for a true carnivore, but not for a natural herbivore, which humans undoubtedly are.
The meat eaters can bang on all they like and launch their personal attacks against me and vegans in general, but we all know that what I write is the truth. You can build up all the psychological barriers you like to allow you to indulge in your unnatural practices without feeling guilt, but deep down you all know that what you are doing is not natural. I wish meat eaters would just be honest about eating flesh, because they like the taste of it, and stop trying to justify their morbid addiction as being some sick type of natural behaviour.
written by Russell Edwards, 16 August 2010
@Alex again just quickly, plants do in fact detect and respond to stimuli. In fact, sensitivity and movement are considered to be one of the defining characteristics of all living organisms, including microorganisms. I don't think CNS nociceptor status is likely to provide you with a criteron that convenient matches with your personal food biases. On that front you'd be eating jellyfish and lobster. In any case I don't see why a particular mechanism for sensitivity should be privileged over others.
written by Russell Edwards, 16 August 2010
@Alex just quickly as I'm running late for an appointment.
1) You complain that nature is not in the scope of your moral damnation, but you choose to pass judgement on a behaviour that takes place in the context of and as part of a natural ecosystem. When I hunt, I am a full participant in an ecosystem. You cannot pass judgement on part of an ecosystem without passing judgement all other parts of the system that engage in homologous behaviour.
2) ou complain that nature is not in the scope of your moral damnation, yet you admit that non-human predation "concerns you". Why?
3) You complain about the arbitrary assertion of biodiversity or "nature" as an intrinsic good -- but you yourself arbitrarily assert predation as inherently bad, i.e. of negative value. When questioned on why it is bad for an animal to be killed and eaten by another animal, you claim it is self-evident. Sorry, it's not self-evident to me that something which occurs probably billions of times every day can be intrinsically bad. The world must be a very evil place, indeed, in your eyes.
1) You complain that nature is not in the scope of your moral damnation, but you choose to pass judgement on a behaviour that takes place in the context of and as part of a natural ecosystem. When I hunt, I am a full participant in an ecosystem. You cannot pass judgement on part of an ecosystem without passing judgement all other parts of the system that engage in homologous behaviour.
2) ou complain that nature is not in the scope of your moral damnation, yet you admit that non-human predation "concerns you". Why?
3) You complain about the arbitrary assertion of biodiversity or "nature" as an intrinsic good -- but you yourself arbitrarily assert predation as inherently bad, i.e. of negative value. When questioned on why it is bad for an animal to be killed and eaten by another animal, you claim it is self-evident. Sorry, it's not self-evident to me that something which occurs probably billions of times every day can be intrinsically bad. The world must be a very evil place, indeed, in your eyes.
written by Alex Melonas, 16 August 2010
@Patrick: Good question. Let me answer it like this. The "relevant dissimilarity" between plants and animals (human and nonhuman) is that the best evidence we have suggests that plants are not sentient. And sentience, I maintain, is a prerequisite for being able to be harmed at all. Plants, for example, do not have central nervous systems or nociceptors, and they don't produce endorphins. Furthermore, sentience is a means to detect harmful stimuli, but plants haven't evolved the capacity to flee noxious stimuli for the end of survival, so why would they have evolved the capacity to feel pain, which is a response to noxious stimuli? These characteristics suggest sentience in our species, and they are equally possessed by nonhuman animals. Therefore, the scientific principle of parsimony would suggest that plants are not sentient, and therefore, cannot be harmed. In other words, plants don't care, because they aren't capable of caring, if they are eaten; they are "its", not "hes" and/or "shes".
written by Patrick , 16 August 2010
Al, I don't totally disagree with this essay, however, I read the first link you gave above on the ethics of eating animals. You put forth the idea of speciesism and summarize the main point by saying, " Animal rights, then, is simply about consistency. If causing me harm unnecessarily is wrong then doing likewise to nonhuman animals is too unless we can cite a relevant dissimilarity." I am wondering what the relevant dissimilarity between plants and animals is that makes it ethical to eat one living creature (a plant), but not another (an animal)? Please be specific. In the end we are all speciest, some of us just draw that "relevant dissimilarity line" in different places.
One last comment, I am not sure "relevant dissimilarity” is sufficient to make unnecessarily causing harm to another living organism ok.
One last comment, I am not sure "relevant dissimilarity” is sufficient to make unnecessarily causing harm to another living organism ok.
written by Alex Melonas, 16 August 2010
@Michael: I am certainly not implying that the (let's assume) "natural" act of eating animals is unethical on the grounds that it is "natural"; that is, the "natural impulse", as you put it, is not unethical in and of itself. As the portions of my article you quoted state: there is a conceptual difference between "natural" and "ethical", and all attempts to arrive at evaluative or "ought" claims by way of "is" ("natural") claims are logical fallacies.
In other words, you need an independent argument to justify eating animals because "it is 'natural'" isn't a valid (moral) premise.
As for nonhuman animal predators, the difference between you, me and them is that you and I are what philosophers call "moral agents", whereas lions, say, or human children and some mentally handicapped humans, are not "moral agents". Therefore, since "moral agency" is a prerequisite for moral approval/disapproval of the acting agent, a lion, or a severely senile human, cannot be said to be acting unethically because they lack the requisite intellectual capacities and language to morally judge their actions. We might prevent them from acting if those actions cause harm and death; however, the individual non-"moral agent" doesn't act ethically or unethically; he/she just acts. The western system of law, for example, is predicated on this vary distinction between "moral agents" and everybody else.
In other words, you need an independent argument to justify eating animals because "it is 'natural'" isn't a valid (moral) premise.
As for nonhuman animal predators, the difference between you, me and them is that you and I are what philosophers call "moral agents", whereas lions, say, or human children and some mentally handicapped humans, are not "moral agents". Therefore, since "moral agency" is a prerequisite for moral approval/disapproval of the acting agent, a lion, or a severely senile human, cannot be said to be acting unethically because they lack the requisite intellectual capacities and language to morally judge their actions. We might prevent them from acting if those actions cause harm and death; however, the individual non-"moral agent" doesn't act ethically or unethically; he/she just acts. The western system of law, for example, is predicated on this vary distinction between "moral agents" and everybody else.
written by Michael, 16 August 2010
Thanks Alex,
But it seems as though you are trying to imply that the natural impulse to eat meat is somehow unethical.
"But just because something is ‘natural’, it doesn’t make it ethical, writes Alex Melonas."
"The conceptual difference, then, between “natural” and “ethical” could not be any greater"
If you indeed you wish us to be consistent, and that nature isn't a justifiable rationale, should we also make lions, sharks and other predators vegan. After all, they only eat meat because it's in their nature.
M
But it seems as though you are trying to imply that the natural impulse to eat meat is somehow unethical.
"But just because something is ‘natural’, it doesn’t make it ethical, writes Alex Melonas."
"The conceptual difference, then, between “natural” and “ethical” could not be any greater"
If you indeed you wish us to be consistent, and that nature isn't a justifiable rationale, should we also make lions, sharks and other predators vegan. After all, they only eat meat because it's in their nature.
M
written by Alex Melonas, 16 August 2010
@Michael: Re-read the article. I don't argue that eating animals is unethical, only that using "natural" as a premise (or principle) to justify eating animals is A) a logical fallacy and B) begs the question about other "natural" behaviors. The ethics of eating animals is an open question, one that I try to answer here:
http://www.thescavenger.net/animals/ethics-doesnt-stop-at-the-species-boundary.html
and here:
http://www.thescavenger.net/animals/why-freedom-of-choice-doesnt-justify-eating-animals.html
http://www.thescavenger.net/animals/ethics-doesnt-stop-at-the-species-boundary.html
and here:
http://www.thescavenger.net/animals/why-freedom-of-choice-doesnt-justify-eating-animals.html
written by Michael, 16 August 2010
Thanks for the article Alex.
I would argue however that natural is, of its very essence, ethical. Ethical comes from the Greek "ethos" referring to a our nature or disposition, as opposed to pathos. To argue that a characteristic (i.e. eating meat) that has developed over the millennia is unethical because we (Westeners) have become squeamish about it over the last 50 years is like a teenager thinking they know better than their parents.
Michael
I would argue however that natural is, of its very essence, ethical. Ethical comes from the Greek "ethos" referring to a our nature or disposition, as opposed to pathos. To argue that a characteristic (i.e. eating meat) that has developed over the millennia is unethical because we (Westeners) have become squeamish about it over the last 50 years is like a teenager thinking they know better than their parents.
Michael
written by Alex Melonas, 16 August 2010
@Russell: But you aren't responding to my refutations in the original essay. A) It is a well-worn logical fallacy to derive "ought" or evaluative statements from appeals to "nature", and B) your attempt to remove "predation" from the sphere of ethics fails because it begs the question about other "natural" behaviors that we do remove from the sphere of ethics. To argue that this "natural" behavior is common while war isn't, which is an immanently disputable claim, doesn't answer the question: How do you logically distinguish using "natural" as a premise here but not there?
Furthermore, There isn’t anything inherently “good” about “nature”; “nature” is merely, and I mean merely, the “is” in the is/ought fallacy. The existence of carnivores and omnivores and herbivores is the arbitrary result of ongoing genetic mutation in response to external stimuli. “Nature”, the product of this process, is a capricious, chance phenomenon. In other words, “nature” is devoid of all moral/ethical content, and any attempt to connect an ethical/moral claim to “nature” is bound to be an is/ought or naturalistic fallacy.
The relevant ethical/moral concern, then, for me, is the harm and death that occurs in “nature”. Hypothetically, therefore, if genetic tinkering could result in the end of predation then that would be ethically/morally better, in the final analysis, than the alternative (e.g. allowing the lion to continue preying on a gazelle).
Because harm and death concern me, the practical limitations to this kind of evaluative argument, however, are impossible to overcome. The complexity or too many variable problem and human fallibility arise and such genetic tampering would no doubt result in more harm and death. We cannot lock carnivores up because of the necessary connections in "nature", as it currently stands, between healthy ecosystems and predation. Russell's ignorance on this point, and thus his criticism of my position, is evidence to support my claim that if we "tinker" more problems will arise. Therefore, a strong policy of non-intervention is appropriate.
But I do hasten to add in response to those who appeal to the “self-evident” value of bio-diversity, or “nature” more generally, that your reasoning is predicated on a basic philosophical confusion. There is no inherent value in “nature” (for the reasons I mentioned above) and therefore altering “nature” (and hypothetically eliminating carnivores and omnivores) is not an unreasoned position.
Furthermore, There isn’t anything inherently “good” about “nature”; “nature” is merely, and I mean merely, the “is” in the is/ought fallacy. The existence of carnivores and omnivores and herbivores is the arbitrary result of ongoing genetic mutation in response to external stimuli. “Nature”, the product of this process, is a capricious, chance phenomenon. In other words, “nature” is devoid of all moral/ethical content, and any attempt to connect an ethical/moral claim to “nature” is bound to be an is/ought or naturalistic fallacy.
The relevant ethical/moral concern, then, for me, is the harm and death that occurs in “nature”. Hypothetically, therefore, if genetic tinkering could result in the end of predation then that would be ethically/morally better, in the final analysis, than the alternative (e.g. allowing the lion to continue preying on a gazelle).
Because harm and death concern me, the practical limitations to this kind of evaluative argument, however, are impossible to overcome. The complexity or too many variable problem and human fallibility arise and such genetic tampering would no doubt result in more harm and death. We cannot lock carnivores up because of the necessary connections in "nature", as it currently stands, between healthy ecosystems and predation. Russell's ignorance on this point, and thus his criticism of my position, is evidence to support my claim that if we "tinker" more problems will arise. Therefore, a strong policy of non-intervention is appropriate.
But I do hasten to add in response to those who appeal to the “self-evident” value of bio-diversity, or “nature” more generally, that your reasoning is predicated on a basic philosophical confusion. There is no inherent value in “nature” (for the reasons I mentioned above) and therefore altering “nature” (and hypothetically eliminating carnivores and omnivores) is not an unreasoned position.
written by Russell Edwards, 15 August 2010
Chuck, there are thousands of ecosystem types out there and millions of individual ecosystems, if not more. Every one I can think of involves predation. I cannot prove they ALL involve it without cataloging every one of those millions and identifying the predator species. As with most theories, we can disprove by counterexample but we cannot prove-- we can only confirm up to a certain confidence level.
Go out around you and have a look in nature. Or watch some David Attenborough films. Or read an Ecology textbook.
Predation is all around you. Open your eyes.
Go out around you and have a look in nature. Or watch some David Attenborough films. Or read an Ecology textbook.
Predation is all around you. Open your eyes.
written by Chuck, 15 August 2010
"Ok Chuck, show me one natural ecosystem that functions without predation"
Hey know it all, the owness is on you to support what you claim, I don't have to disprove your non sensical rant, you did that yourself by not having any credible sources included to support what you stated.
I don't have to show you an eco system that functions without predation, you have to prove as you stated that "nature cannot function without predation. No more straw and other fallacious notions please, it won't work because I know unfounded opinion when i read it. No matter what some meat eating scientists monster theorizes about predation doesn't make it the last word on the subject . I have no doubt a person like you believes much of what he was told or lead to believe so really how valid is anything you understand as reality.
If predation was such an inherent part of humanity, why is factory farming, and the slaughtering of animals hidden away from us? When is the last time you sat down to dinner in front of the tv and while you were eating watched footage of animals being killed by other humans in a slaughter plant? If you beleive as you claim and if there was much truth to it, then the whole family should be able to enjoy stunned animals bleeding to death right in front of their eyes .
The majority of people cannot handle what you say is natural for us, what is your rationale for "predator" sympathy and empathy?
What sets us apart ,from what you lump us in with?
You are a cold monster who relies on scientifc consensus, a type of stigmergy to aid in making an opinion by relaying to you what that opinion should be.
Go Vegan!
Hey know it all, the owness is on you to support what you claim, I don't have to disprove your non sensical rant, you did that yourself by not having any credible sources included to support what you stated.
I don't have to show you an eco system that functions without predation, you have to prove as you stated that "nature cannot function without predation. No more straw and other fallacious notions please, it won't work because I know unfounded opinion when i read it. No matter what some meat eating scientists monster theorizes about predation doesn't make it the last word on the subject . I have no doubt a person like you believes much of what he was told or lead to believe so really how valid is anything you understand as reality.
If predation was such an inherent part of humanity, why is factory farming, and the slaughtering of animals hidden away from us? When is the last time you sat down to dinner in front of the tv and while you were eating watched footage of animals being killed by other humans in a slaughter plant? If you beleive as you claim and if there was much truth to it, then the whole family should be able to enjoy stunned animals bleeding to death right in front of their eyes .
The majority of people cannot handle what you say is natural for us, what is your rationale for "predator" sympathy and empathy?
What sets us apart ,from what you lump us in with?
You are a cold monster who relies on scientifc consensus, a type of stigmergy to aid in making an opinion by relaying to you what that opinion should be.
Go Vegan!
written by Russell Edwards, 15 August 2010
Ok Chuck, show me one natural ecosystem that functions without predation.
written by Chuck, 15 August 2010
"Nature CANNOT function without predation" Ridiculous unfounded opinion no matter who said it first, i'm guessing it wasn't you if you didn't back it with something of substance
"If you construct a moral philosophy that says predation is wrong, then you condemn the entire biosphere to damnation. "
Again more baseless nonsense.
To think you have the gall state nothing that can be substantiated.
"If you construct a moral philosophy that says predation is wrong, then you condemn the entire biosphere to damnation. "
Again more baseless nonsense.
To think you have the gall state nothing that can be substantiated.
written by Russell Edwards, 14 August 2010
Alex, the reason why natural diet is privileged over other natural behaviours is because predation is THE fundamental interaction of natural ecosystems.
Nature can function without rape, racism, or intraspecies agression. Nature CANNOT function without predation.
If you construct a moral philosophy that says predation is wrong, then you condemn the entire biosphere to damnation.
This is both ridiculous and dangerous. It's self-evidently ridiculous to claim moral superiority over all life on Earth. And it's dangerous, because it naturally leads towards activism involving the annihilation of natural ecosystems on Earth as we know of them. I have heard animal rights activists argue we should genetically modify every species on Earth. I have heard others say they wish all life would cease to exist to end the suffering.
And to think that animal rights activists have the gall to attach themselves to the environment movement when their philosophy is actually opposed to the natural environment and every ecosystem within it.
Nature can function without rape, racism, or intraspecies agression. Nature CANNOT function without predation.
If you construct a moral philosophy that says predation is wrong, then you condemn the entire biosphere to damnation.
This is both ridiculous and dangerous. It's self-evidently ridiculous to claim moral superiority over all life on Earth. And it's dangerous, because it naturally leads towards activism involving the annihilation of natural ecosystems on Earth as we know of them. I have heard animal rights activists argue we should genetically modify every species on Earth. I have heard others say they wish all life would cease to exist to end the suffering.
And to think that animal rights activists have the gall to attach themselves to the environment movement when their philosophy is actually opposed to the natural environment and every ecosystem within it.
Write comment
