Meat eater, vegetarian or vegan?

The Pessimist wrote: ExittheLemming: I don't recall saying that I think I'm better than everyone else, but if it came across that way then I do apologise profusely. This was in response to many people saying that being omnivorous is the natural occurrence. I would agree, and without repeating myself, I think my definition of natural is very different to yours. I would presume (at a risk) that you consider the natural evolution on human morality to be a natural phenomenon. I'd consider the basic state before certain moral developments to be the natural state, and the moral steps we take afterwards to be a manmade extension or development on that natural state. No-one can deny however that morality is a constantly changing thing.

No need for apologies,I enjoyed our exchanges but I was guilty of being my usual abrasive self,
Thanks for providing such a thought provoking thread.

The Pessimist wrote:   I definitely mixed the two, apologies for my ignorance. I will alter my point to accommodate this. Wouldn't you agree that certain moral points have emerged due to knowledge acquired by the human race through philosophical contemplation and the scientific process? I'm just curious as it will help me address my point better.

Dean wrote: The Pessimist wrote: It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway I'm a firm believer that morality derives from intellect, and human intellect (which works on several levels may I add) is something that has been crafted since the dawn of our species, leading to where we are today. We haven't always been this intelligent, that is a given. We weren't always this moral either. There isn't much evidence of Neolithic society, but I can hazard a guess that their moral system was rather... well, Neolithic. Primitive. Rape, murder and theft were probably only just about seen as heinous, so I can't imagine we were contemplating deeper notions of morality, like equality. Our morality has evolved, and we've recorded it in books. Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so. Then again, as you've stated, it could not be. You are mixing intellect (the capacity for learning) with intelligence (the acquisition and application of knowledge) and knowledge itself. The capability of the human mind has not evolved over time, a Neolithic human is identical in every way to a modern human (there is some speculation that brain volume has decreased over the past 12,000 or so years but that is highly speculative based upon limited data and the assumption that increased DHA omega-3 fatty acid from a higher proportion of fish in the prehistoric diet - if brain size was a measure of intelligence it is however an argument that we are less intelligent that out prehistoric forebears). Our sum of human knowledge has increased but only in proportion to our understanding of the world around us, our level of relative intelligence in regard to what we need to know is unchanged, it is a fair assumption that you cannot knap flint tools, that does not make you more or less intelligent it is simply knowledge you do not possess. Knowing more things does not make you more intelligent and it does not increase your intellect. We cannot measure the IQ of prehistoric people, in more recent history there are things that bronze age people could achieve that confounds us today because of our arrogant view of more "primitive" times. I definitely mixed the two, apologies for my ignorance. I will alter my point to accommodate this. Wouldn't you agree that certain moral points have emerged due to knowledge acquired by the human race through philosophical contemplation and the scientific process? I'm just curious as it will help me address my point better. The Pessimist wrote:   But let me elaborate my point further with examples: I consider religion to be a naturally occurring phenomena, as it is one of the few philosophical constants that envelopes all societies everywhere. Often as part of religion (discounting Westernised modern equivalents), sexism is there. In fact, I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a patriarchy. I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race. The whole Alpha Male thing is still very prominent in our race still as well, although I think I'm probably pushing at an open door with you on that one. Let's also take the Maori tribe. A dying race of folk now, but they currently and always have engaged in cannibalism. This is not the only example of this. In fact there are thousands of examples. Western countries also have a history of cannibalism. There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature. I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself. And thus from these examples I can deduce that morality as we know it counters nature. As you've said though, I could be wrong and am welcome to an argument that will sway me. I have faith in humanity too, but I feel there are many things we need to work on still. We've come a long way, but the fight for a good moral structure is well and truly still on. You are still constructing a strawman, (albeit indirectly perhaps), as these "examples" are neither illustrative nor are they equivalents. The arrogance that civilisation is morally superior to these "primitive" examples has oft been a disingenuous justification for ethically dubious practices - the slave trade is a prime example of that, as is the forced conversion of indigenous peoples to western ideology and religion. With the benefit of hindsight and "enlightenment" we see things differently now, but they believed they were being morally ethical because they deemed themselves to be morally superior ... that was an arrogance. Perhaps it is a strawman, and it was definitely unintentional. Maybe I'm being vague as I'm not saying that because a group "primitive" or lesser developed that they are less moral. In fact I'd consider capitalist fascism incredibly immoral. Lesser developed countries should barely even come into the argument as development has nothing to do with knowledge acquired, e.g. most, if not all, of my favourite musicians come out of poverty. I'm not (edit) trying to say that the smarter you are the more moral you are either, and I can see why if you take my point like that it would be enraging. Of course, people can be incredibly intelligent and still commit crimes against humanity (Mao being of the infamous). Slavery would be another example of this. I am trying to say though that there are certain things we have learned, or come to agreement on, as a collective, that have changed our moral coding. This comes through knowledge. The Pessimist wrote:   Regarding this: "The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance..." I would say that the very idea of calling a culture uncivilised derives from its level of morality. Call me old fashioned, but morality for me has most to do with living alongside other living creatures. It may be an arrogant view, but once again I'm open to argument. You are old fashioned. Surely primitive tribes live alongside nature are more moral and ethical than any so-called civilised culture. My point several posts back is the disassociation between the food on the supermarket shelf and the animal in the field has permitted the unethical treatment of livestock, this is a product of civilisation, a  civilisation that you claim is more moral than an uncivilised one. Once you introduce morality into lifestyle choices you open a whole can of worms. Stick with your emotional decision, it is more honest than any contrived moral justification. If someone is being uncivilised then they are generally being immoral to some degree. Once again I think this is a case of different definitions, as a tribe that lives an ethical life with nature is what I would call a more civilised society then any first world country that I can think of. For me, civilised and moral are the same word, whereas I think you're using the word to describe how powerful and organised the nation is. In fact, the dictionary tells us both uses of the word are correct.

ExittheLemming:

I don't recall saying that I think I'm better than everyone else, but if it came across that way then I do apologise profusely. This was in response to many people saying that being omnivorous is the natural occurrence. I would agree, and without repeating myself, I think my definition of natural is very different to yours. I would presume (at a risk) that you consider the natural evolution on human morality to be a natural phenomenon. I'd consider the basic state before certain moral developments to be the natural state, and the moral steps we take afterwards to be a manmade extension or development on that natural state. No-one can deny however that morality is a constantly changing thing.

Slarti:

Sorry about how that came across, I was in a rather foul mood this morning.


Edited by The Pessimist - January 12 2014 at 11:53

Whatever, on Deans advice, I will be doing my shopping at Waitrose from now on.

Sorry if I'm skirting off topic a bit here but I can't resist sharing this...Below Dean mentioned proper usage of chickens and spoke about our grandparents generation....well, it brought this photo instantly to mind.

This is a neighbor lady from back in my Grandparents old neighborhood.  She preparing the evening meal and I'm guessing that not an ounce of that bird will be going to waste!   Also, this photo was taken in the middle of a large city.....this is not out on the farm.  year is 1943



Edited by Finnforest - January 12 2014 at 09:22

The Pessimist wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: The Pessimist wrote: Dean wrote: The Pessimist wrote: As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade. Not wishing to ignore the rest of your post but at the same time not wishing to get into a pointless philosophical argument, I disagree with this conclusion. I believe that moral fibre (as you call it) is an inherent trait of humanity, morality and ethics is the formalisation of those traits into a philosophy - we didn't learn these from books, the books were written to explain our natural behavioural tendencies. I believe we were moral before we invented moral codes, we adopt them because we have a natural inclination towards them. The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance, the concept of the barbarian was an artificial construct of imperialism, conquest and religious doctrine. Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected. It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway I'm a firm believer that morality derives from intellect, and human intellect (which works on several levels may I add) is something that has been crafted since the dawn of our species, leading to where we are today. We haven't always been this intelligent, that is a given. We weren't always this moral either. There isn't much evidence of Neolithic society, but I can hazard a guess that their moral system was rather... well, Neolithic. Primitive. Rape, murder and theft were probably only just about seen as heinous, so I can't imagine we were contemplating deeper notions of morality, like equality. Our morality has evolved, and we've recorded it in books. Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so. Then again, as you've stated, it could not be. But let me elaborate my point further with examples: I consider religion to be a naturally occurring phenomena, as it is one of the few philosophical constants that envelopes all societies everywhere. Often as part of religion (discounting Westernised modern equivalents), sexism is there. In fact, I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a patriarchy. I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race. The whole Alpha Male thing is still very prominent in our race still as well, although I think I'm probably pushing at an open door with you on that one. Let's also take the Maori tribe. A dying race of folk now, but they currently and always have engaged in cannibalism. This is not the only example of this. In fact there are thousands of examples. Western countries also have a history of cannibalism. There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature. I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself. And thus from these examples I can deduce that morality as we know it counters nature. As you've said though, I could be wrong and am welcome to an argument that will sway me. I have faith in humanity too, but I feel there are many things we need to work on still. We've come a long way, but the fight for a good moral structure is well and truly still on. Regarding this: "The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance..." I would say that the very idea of calling a culture uncivilised derives from its level of morality. Call me old fashioned, but morality for me has most to do with living alongside other living creatures. It may be an arrogant view, but once again I'm open to argument. Apologies for going off topic a tad but I can't believe this post: in summation - anything that changes human standards about morality over time (including evolution) is by definition 'unnatural' because what was hitherto deemed morally acceptable has now changed in the interim. You state "We haven't always been this intelligent" You are kidding right? I didn't say it's unnatural, I'm saying that morality serves as a dialectical to nature. There is a massive difference. Everything we do can essentially be called "natural" because... Well, it's happened, but every moral you can think of was once unquestioned, with a few exceptions. And no, I'm not. There's evidence that's humans were once rather primitive beings, and thus not as intelligent. Intelligence is a constantly evolving thing. As individuals we become more intelligent through learning. You highlight the statement "We weren't always this intelligent" as though it's ridiculous, but could you explain why?

I'm not sure I really should have to explain to such an evolved species as yourself BUT I merely quoted you stating such:

Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so

I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race

There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature.

I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself.

Do you want me to stop?

Dean I agree with every letter of what you wrote below....my folks were Depression era kids and my grandparents taught them the kind of values you discuss....using everything....modest eating....things I employ as well in my life.   And not just food.  Our old clothes become our rags for garage and cleaning, lawn clippings get mulched, not bagged and driven away somewhere, things around the house are donated if still useful to someone.  Although I still think food producers would use any mandatory regulation of their world as a reason to jack up the prices....whether they really need to or not.  In the same way you admit they exploit those who will buy ethical food choices.  Maybe the spike would be only temporary though until all producers were acting more reasonably across the board, then prices would drop again? 

Edited by Finnforest - January 12 2014 at 08:25

The Pessimist wrote: Dean wrote: The Pessimist wrote: As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade. Not wishing to ignore the rest of your post but at the same time not wishing to get into a pointless philosophical argument, I disagree with this conclusion. I believe that moral fibre (as you call it) is an inherent trait of humanity, morality and ethics is the formalisation of those traits into a philosophy - we didn't learn these from books, the books were written to explain our natural behavioural tendencies. I believe we were moral before we invented moral codes, we adopt them because we have a natural inclination towards them. The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance, the concept of the barbarian was an artificial construct of imperialism, conquest and religious doctrine. Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected. It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway I'm a firm believer that morality derives from intellect, and human intellect (which works on several levels may I add) is something that has been crafted since the dawn of our species, leading to where we are today. We haven't always been this intelligent, that is a given. We weren't always this moral either. There isn't much evidence of Neolithic society, but I can hazard a guess that their moral system was rather... well, Neolithic. Primitive. Rape, murder and theft were probably only just about seen as heinous, so I can't imagine we were contemplating deeper notions of morality, like equality. Our morality has evolved, and we've recorded it in books. Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so. Then again, as you've stated, it could not be. But let me elaborate my point further with examples: I consider religion to be a naturally occurring phenomena, as it is one of the few philosophical constants that envelopes all societies everywhere. Often as part of religion (discounting Westernised modern equivalents), sexism is there. In fact, I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a patriarchy. I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race. The whole Alpha Male thing is still very prominent in our race still as well, although I think I'm probably pushing at an open door with you on that one. Let's also take the Maori tribe. A dying race of folk now, but they currently and always have engaged in cannibalism. This is not the only example of this. In fact there are thousands of examples. Western countries also have a history of cannibalism. There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature. I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself. And thus from these examples I can deduce that morality as we know it counters nature. As you've said though, I could be wrong and am welcome to an argument that will sway me. I have faith in humanity too, but I feel there are many things we need to work on still. We've come a long way, but the fight for a good moral structure is well and truly still on. Regarding this: "The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance..." I would say that the very idea of calling a culture uncivilised derives from its level of morality. Call me old fashioned, but morality for me has most to do with living alongside other living creatures. It may be an arrogant view, but once again I'm open to argument.

Apologies for going off topic a tad but I can't believe this post: in summation - anything that changes human standards about morality over time (including evolution) is by definition 'unnatural' because what was hitherto deemed morally acceptable has now changed in the interim.
You state "We haven't always been this intelligent" You are kidding right?

akamaisondufromage wrote:   Agree with every word of this. I would add that retailers should stop the BOGOF and similar offers on meat or veg that will go off and get wasted. Just put the price down if you want to put stuff on offer. Also eat less meat (you do say smaller portions though) but a meal doesn't have to include meat every time. Variety is the spice... Then we can save money eat better and stop animals being treated like sh*t.

Dean wrote: The Pessimist wrote: As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade. Not wishing to ignore the rest of your post but at the same time not wishing to get into a pointless philosophical argument, I disagree with this conclusion. I believe that moral fibre (as you call it) is an inherent trait of humanity, morality and ethics is the formalisation of those traits into a philosophy - we didn't learn these from books, the books were written to explain our natural behavioural tendencies. I believe we were moral before we invented moral codes, we adopt them because we have a natural inclination towards them. The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance, the concept of the barbarian was an artificial construct of imperialism, conquest and religious doctrine. Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected.

It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway

I'm a firm believer that morality derives from intellect, and human intellect (which works on several levels may I add) is something that has been crafted since the dawn of our species, leading to where we are today. We haven't always been this intelligent, that is a given. We weren't always this moral either. There isn't much evidence of Neolithic society, but I can hazard a guess that their moral system was rather... well, Neolithic. Primitive. Rape, murder and theft were probably only just about seen as heinous, so I can't imagine we were contemplating deeper notions of morality, like equality. Our morality has evolved, and we've recorded it in books. Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so. Then again, as you've stated, it could not be. But let me elaborate my point further with examples:

I consider religion to be a naturally occurring phenomena, as it is one of the few philosophical constants that envelopes all societies everywhere. Often as part of religion (discounting Westernised modern equivalents), sexism is there. In fact, I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a patriarchy. I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race. The whole Alpha Male thing is still very prominent in our race still as well, although I think I'm probably pushing at an open door with you on that one.

Let's also take the Maori tribe. A dying race of folk now, but they currently and always have engaged in cannibalism. This is not the only example of this. In fact there are thousands of examples. Western countries also have a history of cannibalism. There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature.

I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself.

And thus from these examples I can deduce that morality as we know it counters nature. As you've said though, I could be wrong and am welcome to an argument that will sway me. I have faith in humanity too, but I feel there are many things we need to work on still. We've come a long way, but the fight for a good moral structure is well and truly still on.

Regarding this:

"The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance..."

I would say that the very idea of calling a culture uncivilised derives from its level of morality. Call me old fashioned, but morality for me has most to do with living alongside other living creatures. It may be an arrogant view, but once again I'm open to argument.