# Morality And Meat Eating



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

Hiya all!

After a 24 hour break from the tasteless thread, I decided to actually start a real debate instead of picking on moderators. If you're a retard that likes to post emoticons and press "add reply", please get out now.

I am going to attempt to defend the following statement:

"In a modern society where choice is everywhere, what gives us the right to kill animals for sustenance."

Please note the following:

-We are on top of the food chain, but don't we have a responsibility to make sure that equity and justice is maintained for all walks of life?!

-Stating "It's good" is NOT an option. You can eat something new every day for the rest of your life without decapitating a cow or anything else for that matter.

-Religion has NOTHING to do with this. Please think of the morality aspect of this.

-Please note that I eat meat regularly.

Enjoy.

Pac


----------



## MR.FREEZ (Jan 26, 2004)




----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

mr.freez said:


> [snapback]833034[/snapback]​










Sorry, but thats just funny.

Morality of eatting meat? Why not question why we eat meat? In which case for its obvious nutritional content.


----------



## dwarfcat (Sep 21, 2004)




----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

God, I'm already regretting this....



> In which case for its obvious nutritional content.


You can definitely get proper nutrition elsewhere









Pac


----------



## johndeere (Jul 21, 2004)

mr.freez said:


> [snapback]833034[/snapback]​


----------



## johndeere (Jul 21, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Sorry, but thats just funny.
> 
> Morality of eatting meat? Why not question why we eat meat? In which case for its obvious nutritional content.
> [snapback]833041[/snapback]​


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

Cow, pig, chicken, and fish taste BETTER than other options. Thats all the reason I need.


----------



## johndeere (Jul 21, 2004)

dwarfcat said:


> [snapback]833043[/snapback]​












I feel like a post whore


----------



## nova (Aug 9, 2004)

Not sure if I am answering the right question but I think of it this way,
Humans are Animals, just like bears, tigers, crocs... We just do what we need to do in order to survive, in this case its eating. Sure we can live off fruits and veggies, but why? When you can have a nice steak instead.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

PacmanXSA said:


> God, I'm already regretting this....
> You can definitely get proper nutrition elsewhere
> 
> 
> ...


Like what? Pills? You cant take pill supplements all your life.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

nova said:


> Not sure if I am answering the right question but I think of it this way,
> Humans are Animals, just like bears, tigers, crocs... We just do what we need to do in order to survive, in this case its eating. Sure we can live off fruits and veggies, but why? When you can have a nice steak instead.
> [snapback]833052[/snapback]​


Steak is protein


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Why is "it's Good" not an option exactly?

As for the rest of it, specifically



> In a modern society where choice is everywhere, what gives us the *right* to kill animals for sustenance
> 
> We are on top of the food chain, but don't we have a responsibility to make sure that *equity and justice* is maintained for all walks of life?!


Equity, justice and rights are all human ideas. They do not apply in an animal kingdom and they're wholy subjective. Where you may think you have a "right" to something another person may feel wholy different. The entire concept of a "right" or "fair" or "justice" is something that exists solely within your head, there is no universal "rights" or universal "justice".

To try and apply this to the animal kingdom is even more troublesome. Does the hyena have the right to eat a baby antelope that gets seperated from the herd? What gives a lion the right to chase away a less dominant lion from a kill it made and eat it for itself? There are no such things as "rights" or "justice" in the animal kingdom because they are simply concepts and not something that actually exists in any true sense.


----------



## Andy1234 (Apr 23, 2004)

i think its alright to eat animals but i dotn think its right the way that mass production companies that make meat treat their animals its jsut cruel


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

nova said:


> Not sure if I am answering the right question but I think of it this way,
> Humans are Animals, just like bears, tigers, crocs... We just do what we need to do in order to survive, in this case its eating. Sure we can live off fruits and veggies, but why? When you can have a nice steak instead.
> [snapback]833052[/snapback]​


Think of it in the reverse role. A person could eat you or eat a plant and get the same nutritional value. Why should he eat you? Just because he can?



> Like what? Pills? You cant take pill supplements all your life.


With a little research I guarantee you that you can have a proper diet without having to slaughter a caged animal. And yes, you can get all the nutrition you need from pills. You would still need to eat something for sustenance though. What gives you the right to eat life instead? That's the question at hand. It IS essentially the same question as you posed earlier "Why not question why we eat meat?". My statement is just more precise in nature.



> Why is "it's Good" not an option exactly?


Because we're discussing morality and not culinary preference baby











> Equity, justice and rights are all human ideas. They do not apply in an animal kingdom and they're wholy subjective. Where you may think you have a "right" to something another person may feel wholy different. The entire concept of a "right" or "fair" or "justice" is something that exists solely within your head, there is no universal "rights" or universal "justice".


Excellent argument. However, most have deemed that life is in fact a right (Unless you live in Texas or Turkey







) Justice is something totally different that we may not want to get into just yet.



> To try and apply this to the animal kingdom is even more troublesome. Does the hyena have the right to eat a baby antelope that gets seperated from the herd?


My answer to that is yes, solely because the hyena doesn't know better. We, as human beings actually have the choice.



> ...they are simply concepts and not something that actually exists in any true sense.


Exactly my point above.

Let's take this scenario for example:

You have a plate of substance A and a big fat pig on plate B. Both contain the same nutritional value, however plate A has never been alive. What gives you the right to choose plate B if that's what you desire? Why KILL when you don't HAVE to?

To all those people posting emoticons, don't poke the bear kids...

Pac


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Yes I eat meat, I have no problem trying to sustain my existence on the planet.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

PacmanXSA said:


> Think of it in the reverse role. A person could eat you or eat a plant and get the same nutritional value. Why should he eat you? Just because he can?
> With a little research I guarantee you that you can have a proper diet without having to slaughter a caged animal. And yes, you can get all the nutrition you need from pills. You would still need to eat something for sustenance though. What gives you the right to eat life instead? That's the question at hand. It IS essentially the same question as you posed earlier "Why not question why we eat meat?". My statement is just more precise in nature.
> Because we're discussing morality and not culinary preference baby
> 
> ...


If you are talking about plant material on plate A, then yes it HAS been alive at some point in time.


----------



## MR.FREEZ (Jan 26, 2004)

> To all those people posting emoticons, don't poke the bear kids...


your the one that made it so tempting









o and i thought it kinda funny your defending this when you regulary eat meat, so how you

gonna argue this and expect to be taken seriously


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Sorry dude, but the fact that I can go kill someone right this instance shows that the right to live is nothing more than an idea. You can not find this right to live and observe it yourself, you can't pick it up, you can't look at it, it's a concept and nothing more than that. No cosmic force keeps this "right" in check, or enforces it, it's just something we as humans think should happen.

To take it from another direction, you said "most have deemed life a right" thereby implying that all it takes is a majority to believe in a right to make it exist, well most people eat meat and therefore they do not believe that animals have a right to live, and therefore no right exists guaranteeing animals anything at all. That means eating meat is a-ok, and now that it's past midnight and I don't have to fast anymore, I'm gonna eat me a hot dog to celebrate


----------



## ghostnote (Jul 21, 2004)

lets run some really really ghetto and thrown together numbers..

The plant i work at currently employs 2000 people. normally its more but with mad cows and the current state of the market plus the cost of cattle its that low. thats one plant. the company i work for has 6 plants. thats 12,000 people. now.. figure there are a few other companys as well. IBP, Excel (cargill), Swift, conagra. i think those are the top beef producers in the country... i could be wrong but lets keep it ghetto. thats 48,000 thousand people. that have now lost a job. so you could be happy with not killing cows. mind you. the whole process of getting that beef to your table is pretty extensive. it has to be shipped, it has be further cut into what ever it is your eating(middle men). so theres more people with out jobs. for grins and giggles you could say there goes McDonalds (becuase lets face it, the fish sandwich aint going to keep them floating) and just about every other fast food chain and steak house.

Now.. you've just put over 1,000,000 (plus or minus ALOT) people out of work. Why?

becuase you feel sorry for a cow. well. lets look at that for a second. what has a cow ever done for you?
ima go out on a limb on this one.. Not a god damn thing. will a cow ever do something for you. no. let me tell you why. becuase they're pretty much the dumbest animal on the planet. no cow will learn sign language, no cow will ever fetch a stick. hell, you can't even get a cow to Moo on command (dont ask) they are totally dependent on humans to stay alive, are you going to free them? let them roam the streets, ever hit a deer, try a 2000 pound cow.. that'll leave a mark.

dont get me wrong i understand the whole meat is murder deal. but people dont look past there foolish ideals sometimes. and read the fine print. anyway.. of to the slaughter house :rasp:


----------



## Jebus (Feb 29, 2004)

PacmanXSA said:


> Think of it in the reverse role. A person could eat you or eat a plant and get the same nutritional value. Why should he eat you? Just because he can?
> [snapback]833073[/snapback]​


Why do people climb mt.Everest because its there.

and how could you resist this.


----------



## Jebus (Feb 29, 2004)

PacmanXSA said:


> Think of it in the reverse role. A person could eat you or eat a plant and get the same nutritional value. Why should he eat you? Just because he can?
> [snapback]833073[/snapback]​


Why do people climb mt.Everest because its there.

and how could you resist this.


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

With your idealogy, why eat anything at all. All vegetation is considered "alive" when growing, is it not?


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

mr.freez said:


> your the one that made it so tempting
> 
> 
> 
> ...


With words. After discussing this topic elsewhere with other people, I have come to realize myself that it's immoral to eat meat; yet I do it anyways because it has become a cultural norm for the majority of the world.



> Sorry dude, but the fact that I can go kill someone right this instance shows that the right to live is nothing more than an idea. You can not find this right to live and observe it yourself, you can't pick it up, you can't look at it, it's a concept and nothing more than that. No cosmic force keeps this "right" in check, or enforces it, it's just something we as humans think should happen.


The fact that you can doesn't justify it's morality at all. We aren't debating whether or not we *can* kill; it's whether we *should* kill.



> To take it from another direction, you said "most have deemed life a right" thereby implying that all it takes is a majority to believe in a right to make it exist, well most people eat meat and therefore they do not believe that animals have a right to live, and therefore no right exists guaranteeing animals anything at all.


As I mentioned above, eating meat has basically become a cultural norm. Just like eating meat, killing humans is typically something shuned in todays modern society. But just because the masses are doing it; does it justify its correctness? 
We may participate in many activities today that society dubs as OK but could be totally immoral in essence when you really think about it.

You kinda got me on wording above. I'll be bold and state that life IS a right seeing as nothing can happen without life. Life is obviously everyones primary concern over everything else. I'll then go ahead and state that nothing else should be considered a guaranteed right. Happy?!









Enjoy your morale dilemna on a bun!!!









I'm off for the night. I look forward to replying tomorrow after work.

Pac


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

PacmanXSA said:


> With words. After discussing this topic elsewhere with other people, I have come to realize myself that it's immoral to eat meat; yet I do it anyways because it has become a cultural norm for the majority of the world.
> The fact that you can doesn't justify it's morality at all. We aren't debating whether or not we *can* kill; it's whether we *should* kill.[snapback]833104[/snapback]​


And what is morality dude? Again it's a human concept that doesn't actually exist. There is no morality in nature and only humans subscribe to it and even then it's subjective. The mere fact that I can think something is morally right and you can think something is morally wrong proves that such a thing can not possibly exist. If an idea like "morality" existed we could all look at it and say "that's what morality is" or "this is moral" and have 100% agreement.

Some people think it is immoral to smoke weed, some people smoke weed themselves and have no problem with it. Some people think it's immoral to torture people, some people support their country doing it. You can't have something exist if nobody can even agree on it's nature. A rock is a rock because I can pick it up, give it to you, and we can both look at it and hold it. A subjective concept like morality, "right", justice or whatever just boils down to wether someone feels bad about something or not. If I don't feel bad about something, then how can it be morally wrong? If you feel bad that I did it but I think it's a great thing, who decides if it is morally right or wrong?

Better yet, you touched on cultural norms, well cultural norms ARE the stuff concepts like "right" and "wrong" are made of. One thousand years ago most people would agree that it is morally wrong to have sex before marriage because that is how they were raised, yet today most unmarried people in North America participate in such an activity. The act has not changed, yet now it is viewed as morally ok where 1000 years ago it was not. The mere subjective nature of such a concept proves that it can not possibly be anything real or of substance. If there is no universal right or wrong, you can not say something is wrong, just that you do not agree with it.


----------



## JAC (Jan 19, 2004)

View attachment 43381

.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

JAC said:


> View attachment 43381
> 
> .
> [snapback]833201[/snapback]​


Oh man, that was witty AND original. I mean, I have never seen that particular image macro let alone ANY image macro that said "this thread sucks" before. Where in god's name did you manage to dig that one up from? Ebumswirl was it? I've never heard of THAT website, did you find it by entering "comedy websites nobody has ever heard of ever" on google? I wonder if they have this wonderful other image I'm sure nobody has ever seen before, it's this handicapped child running right, and the text says something funny about arguing, oh if I could just remember what it was. Anyhow, keep up with the simply fabulous web gem hunting, the way you both posted something completely original AND brought the intellectual level of the thread way up is amazing


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Im not even going to read this entire thread, but will say this:

You cannot get the entire chain of amino acids unless you eat meat. Certain amino acids found in the proteins from plants/beans.


----------



## hyphen (Apr 4, 2004)

Twitch basically hit the spot. Pac, the whole concept of morality and given rights is just that, a concept. We've created it. And before animal rights and all of this other hippie crap was conceived, we were still eating animals. We have classified ourselves as animals and there is nothing that says otherwise. And like other carnivorous or omnivorous animals we eat meat. When we eat meat it's of a less dominant specie.

Nothing gives us the "right" to do anything, we do it because we need to. Those that feel the need to save an animal's life has the choice of going vegetarian or vegan. Food is food, we're predators and thus our prey get predated.


----------



## BoomerSub (Jun 23, 2003)

I feel I should mention that every single homonid species that became a specialized herbivore went extinct.

-PK


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

hyphen said:


> Nothing gives us the "right" to do anything, we do it because we *want* to. Those that feel the need to save an animal's life has the choice of going vegetarian or vegan. Food is food, we're predators and thus our prey get predated.
> [snapback]833322[/snapback]​


Edited to reflect my feelings. Other than that I aggree wholeheartedly


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Let's put it that way: as soon as our ancestors started eating meat instead of just plant matter, their brains started to grow fast, giving them a competitive edge over their plant-eating neighbours, eventually enabling humanity to evolve the way it has (wheter that's a good thing is another matter) - that's an evolutionary fact.
So who am I to stand evolution in its way?

More importantly: if meat didn't taste so damn good, I'm sure humans would have let cows, pigs, horses and all those other "victimized" animal species alone.

One more thing: morality is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm very sorry for all the bible thumpers and ordinary believers, but their morals, derived from the Bible do not apply to me. Why not? Because I'm not Christian, do not believe in what the Bible dictates, and do not live in a country in which the Bible does dictate my morals. I make up my own morals, based on ration.
That means religious arguments are void - for the very simple reason that they only apply to those that believe. You can say - hypothetical example - that eating beef is not allowed, because the Bible says so: does that mean I, as non-believer cannot eat beef??? Of course not: not in a free society.
Morality is in the eye of the beholder - whatever people use as guideline in moral issues is their personal choice, and that's that.
So there's no definitive answer to the question wheter killing animals for food is morally justifyable or not - only on a personal level....


----------



## *DaisyDarko* (Mar 17, 2004)

In the words of Dennis Leary...
" If meat is murder than murder tastes pretty goddamn good to me"









I myself am a huge meat eater... I love my steak!

My 14 year old daughter on the other hand is a vegan.
Although I don't nessecarily agree with it, (for protein and iron reasons not to mention calcium)
I let her make her own choices. And luckily she believes in peoples right to choose, so she doesn't give me any sh*t about eating meat or dairy.
She does take suppliments, but since becoming vegan I have noticed that she is tired all the time, and get's sick easily.
connection?


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

Vegetarians are stupid. People are entitled to their own views, of course, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their view is correct. And in their case, they are fighting millions of years of evolution - and for what? Some ideal that doesn't even truly exist because they are applying human thought to animals without such thought. Maybe its possible to get a completely balanced diet from pills or exotic plants (I HIGHLY doubt it - has anyone done any long term research on these pills or people who take them?) but WHY would you when you risk damage to your own health?

I'll take a juicy medium-rare filet mignon with Merlot over some pills and a chalky protein drink any day of the week.


----------



## Sheriff Freak (Sep 10, 2004)

> Steak is protein drool.gif


mmmmmmmmmm fat juicy medium rare steak


----------



## WorldBelow07 (Dec 16, 2004)

Jebus said:


> Why do people climb mt.Everest because its there.
> 
> and how could you resist this.
> [snapback]833092[/snapback]​


mmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Papagorgio (Mar 30, 2004)

If God didn't want us to eat animals then why did he make them out of meat?


----------



## JAC (Jan 19, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> Oh man, that was witty AND original. I mean, I have never seen that particular image macro let alone ANY image macro that said "this thread sucks" before. Where in god's name did you manage to dig that one up from? Ebumswirl was it? I've never heard of THAT website, did you find it by entering "comedy websites nobody has ever heard of ever" on google? I wonder if they have this wonderful other image I'm sure nobody has ever seen before, it's this handicapped child running right, and the text says something funny about arguing, oh if I could just remember what it was. Anyhow, keep up with the simply fabulous web gem hunting, the way you both posted something completely original AND brought the intellectual level of the thread way up is amazing
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I'm glad you liked it, I wish I could say the same about your philosophical ramblings on morality







, oh well.


----------



## duende_df (Aug 15, 2004)

sorry man but not eating meat just sounds stupid


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

*DaisyDarko* said:


> In the words of Dennis Leary...
> " If meat is murder than murder tastes pretty goddamn good to me"
> 
> 
> ...


Yes there is connection. Being vegan is unhealthy because you lose many amino acids from lack of proper proteins. Proteins keep your immune system healthy...


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

If morality is an invention and a sham, why don't we eat humans?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

vfrex said:


> If morality is an invention and a sham, why don't we eat humans?
> [snapback]833931[/snapback]​


Since humans own and created morality we can change are edit it anytime we see fit. BTW cannibalism still exists, its not unheard of.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Like what? Pills? You cant take pill supplements all your life.
> [snapback]833054[/snapback]​


Actually, yes you can.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

User said:


> Since humans own and created morality we can chance are edit it anytime we see fit. BTW cannibalism still exists.
> [snapback]833938[/snapback]​


very true.


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

I'm talking about farming humans. I'm sure it would be a delicacy.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Peacock said:


> Actually, yes you can.
> [snapback]833941[/snapback]​


Actually no, you cannot, there are not pills that supplement ALL nutrients lossed out on.


----------



## WorldBelow07 (Dec 16, 2004)

mmmmmmmmmm farmed humans


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

vfrex said:


> If morality is an invention and a sham, why don't we eat humans?
> [snapback]833931[/snapback]​


BTW if morality was a universal law of some sort, it wouldn't change over time or years, we couldn't even set here and argue whats morally right or wrong. Its somewhat scary, but yet somewhat impowering.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

vfrex said:


> I'm talking about farming humans. I'm sure it would be a delicacy.
> [snapback]833946[/snapback]​


If it tasted good, I'm sure some would eat it.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Filo said:


> Actually no, you cannot, there are not pills that supplement ALL nutrients lossed out on.
> [snapback]833950[/snapback]​


Oh? please, tell me what nutrition we are lacking if we dont eat the meat?

What nutrients are lossed?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

User said:


> If it tasted good, I'm sure some would eat it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i would have no problems trying it.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Peacock said:


> Oh? please, tell me what nutrition we are lacking if we dont eat the meat?
> 
> What nutrients are lossed?
> [snapback]833958[/snapback]​


I have already stated TWICE in this thread why. Third time now...You CANNOT get the complete chain of Amino Acids from protein other than meat proteins. Lentils do not have the complete chain...etc.

also-
Vitamin B12, for instance, is only naturally-occurring in animal cells.

"Most vegetarian diets also lack fat content and the fat they do eat are unhealthy poly-unsaturated (vegetable) fats."

Vegetarians also risk iron deffeiency (SP? lol)--almost all high sources of Iron are found in meat.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> *And what is morality dude? Again it's a human concept that doesn't actually exist. There is no morality in nature and only humans subscribe to it and even then it's subjective. The mere fact that I can think something is morally right and you can think something is morally wrong proves that such a thing can not possibly exist. If an idea like "morality" existed we could all look at it and say "that's what morality is" or "this is moral" and have 100% agreement.*
> 
> Some people think it is immoral to smoke weed, some people smoke weed themselves and have no problem with it. Some people think it's immoral to torture people, some people support their country doing it. You can't have something exist if nobody can even agree on it's nature. A rock is a rock because I can pick it up, give it to you, and we can both look at it and hold it. A subjective concept like morality, "right", justice or whatever just boils down to wether someone feels bad about something or not. If I don't feel bad about something, then how can it be morally wrong? If you feel bad that I did it but I think it's a great thing, who decides if it is morally right or wrong?
> 
> ...


Firstly, morality is not subjective. Think of our lives as a road we travel. There are signs along this road. Does everyone have to obey these signs? No, but that does not mean morality is subjective. Ultimately, we are all on the road of life. If someone is travelling at a "slower pace" and someone at a "fast pace", and they both see a sign that says "slow down", both do not have to obey that sign. The person who is travelling slower does not have to obey the "slow down" sign, because they are already going slow. Connecting this back to morality, they are already following that moral issue. As for the person going "too fast", or ignoring that moral issue, they should read the sign and slow down. Even though every person may not follow every sign, does not mean morality is subjective because some may already be following that sign. Ultimately the signs all outline what is moral. Get it? Its hard to explain. I'll try to think of a better way to clarify it.

Second, there is no such thing as subjective nature. Nature is the same for every man. This is natural law. What must be taken into account to figure if it is moraly right to eat meat? Natural law of course. Man has enormous potential. It is man's nature to eat meat, but it is also mans nature not to eat meat. Man can decide which he wants to do because of his free will. He can actualize either of the two potentials. Its a nature vs nurture thing. If you want to learn more about natural law, i suggest reading up on Aristotle.

As to cultural norms, it is not morality that has been changing, but our values. Values are individualistic, meaning they change what you think depending on how you feel. Letting your passions dictate what you think is absurd. If you did, you would never be able to think clearly.

I have thrown out alot of terms, like morality, natural law, nature, and free will, but before we can have a productive argument, we must all agree on these terms. So i ask we focus our attention on defining these terms before we use them to argue. Because if i think red is red and someone else thinks red is blue, we can't possibly come to any sort of understanding.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> Firstly, morality is not subjective. Think of our lives as a road we travel. There are signs along this road. Does everyone have to obey these signs? No, but that does not mean morality is subjective. Ultimately, we are all on the road of life. If someone is travelling at a "slower pace" and someone at a "fast pace", and they both see a sign that says "slow down", both do not have to obey that sign. The person who is travelling slower does not have to obey the "slow down" sign, because they are already going slow. Connecting this back to morality, they are already following that moral issue. As for the person going "too fast", or ignoring that moral issue, they should read the sign and slow down. Even though every person may not follow every sign, does not mean morality is subjective because some may already be following that sign. Ultimately the signs all outline what is moral. Get it? Its hard to explain. I'll try to think of a better way to clarify it.[snapback]833994[/snapback]​


Nice example but you're forgetting something, there are no signs in the real world. You're describing signs as a tangible moral code that you or I can look at and go "oh cool, this is wrong", no such sign exists. If humans make this sign, what power does it have? Who gives it that authority? If I put up a sign that says "it is ok to rape a woman so long as you wear a condom" does that make it morally so? The mere fact that I can say something like that and you can disagree means it is subjective, that's an inalienable fact. If I can say "morality dictates that it is ok to eat meat" and another person can say "morality dictates that it is wrong to kill any animal for any reason" where is the solid concrete "moral code" that we can consult to find out who is right? Such a thing does not exist because there is no such thing as absolute morals, find me evidence of such a thing and I'll paypal you 100 dollars today.



Umbilical Syllables said:


> Second, there is no such thing as subjective nature. Nature is the same for every man. This is natural law. What must be taken into account to figure if it is moraly right to eat meat? Natural law of course. Man has enormous potential. It is man's nature to eat meat, but it is also mans nature not to eat meat. Man can decide which he wants to do because of his free will. He can actualize either of the two potentials. Its a nature vs nurture thing. If you want to learn more about natural law, i suggest reading up on Aristotle.[snapback]833994[/snapback]​


sub·jec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sb-jktv)
adj.

Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

na·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr)
n.

The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing

Put the two words together and you have subjective nature. I'm not talking about nature the noun, I'm talking about nature as an adjective. As in the nature of man is to grow old and die.



Umbilical Syllables said:


> As to cultural norms, it is not morality that has been changing, but our values. Values are individualistic, meaning they change what you think depending on how you feel. Letting your passions dictate what you think is absurd. If you did, you would never be able to think clearly.
> [snapback]833994[/snapback]​


Morality and values are one in the same.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

> Nice example but you're forgetting something, there are no signs in the real world. You're describing signs as a tangible moral code that you or I can look at and go "oh cool, this is wrong", no such sign exists. If humans make this sign, what power does it have? Who gives it that authority? If I put up a sign that says "it is ok to rape a woman so long as you wear a condom" does that make it morally so? The mere fact that I can say something like that and you can disagree means it is subjective, that's an inalienable fact. If I can say "morality dictates that it is ok to eat meat" and another person can say "morality dictates that it is wrong to kill any animal for any reason" where is the solid concrete "moral code" that we can consult to find out who is right? Such a thing does not exist because there is no such thing as absolute morals, find me evidence of such a thing and I'll paypal you 100 dollars today.


Just because something does not have concrete physical existence, does not mean that it does not exist. So just because morals can't be put into a paper bag does not mean they cannot exist. Disagree? Then send me a can of patriotism. Morality has no authority. It is only a suggestion of what is right and wrong. Human being have the power to choose- free will. Therfore we can choose to be moral or immoral. Morality cannot be concrete or physical, because it belongs to the metaphysical, the immaterial. There are things beyond the physical realm. Morality is one of them. Again, consult Aristotle for imformation on metaphysics.

As to nature, i am refering to the philosophical and logical nature of man. Man has enormous potential. One man can be an engineer, another a medical practition, another a drug addict. Does this mean that every man is each one of these? No. But he CAN be. As to which part of his nature man actualises, is an issue of nuturement.

Morality is what man ought to do by *reason *of what he is. (objective)
Values are man made beleifs. (subjective) There is a BIG difference.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

PacmanXSA said:


> Hiya all!
> 
> After a 24 hour break from the tasteless thread, I decided to actually start a real debate instead of picking on moderators. If you're a retard that likes to post emoticons and press "add reply", please get out now.
> 
> ...


dont know, but uuhhhhh, would you kindly pass the wousterseer sauce..


----------



## BoomerSub (Jun 23, 2003)

vfrex said:


> I'm talking about farming humans. I'm sure it would be a delicacy.
> [snapback]833946[/snapback]​


As soon as the technology to so cheaply becomes available, I intend to start cloning anacephalic humans for my combination brothel/restaurant. I'll call it "Long Pig" or similar, kind of a Polynesian/tiki theme. I could sell franchises.

-PK


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

> We are on top of the food chain, but don't we have a responsibility to make sure that equity and justice is maintained for all walks of life?!


By that rationale, we should start a petition to stop the harvesting of carrots. Everytime a field is harvested, there is a holocaust. I'd also recommend not washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap. You'll be killing millions of innocent bacteria.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I cleaned my bathroom (toilet,shower,sink) yesterday, for lunch I had a hamburger and some fries, both of which was alive at one time. Today I had a egg sandwich, and feed all my fish feeders. I'm one murdering son of bitch, I should be incarcerated.


----------



## Roger (Nov 14, 2004)

Eat or be eaten!!!


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Filo said:


> I have already stated TWICE in this thread why. Third time now...You CANNOT get the complete chain of Amino Acids from protein other than meat proteins. Lentils do not have the complete chain...etc.
> also-
> Vitamin B12, for instance, is only naturally-occurring in animal cells.
> 
> ...


umm. Poly and mono unsaturated fat is quite healthy.. and should be eaten.. Saturated fat is NOT healthy.

also, B12 can be acquired through milk. iron?

A vitamin/mineral supliment is required.. this is fact. but eating animals is not required.


----------



## *DaisyDarko* (Mar 17, 2004)

Peacock said:


> umm. Poly and mono unsaturated fat is quite healthy.. and should be eaten.. Saturated fat is NOT healthy.
> 
> also, B12 can be acquired through milk. iron?
> 
> ...


Alot of vegatarians do not drink milk.... like Vegans.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

*DaisyDarko* said:


> Alot of vegatarians do not drink milk.... like Vegans.
> [snapback]834550[/snapback]​


well, they can die and go to hell, with me.

I wonder if vegatarians masterbate.. think of all the little sperm killed by 1 simple shower time fun.


----------



## WorldBelow07 (Dec 16, 2004)

Peacock said:


> well, they can die and go to hell, with me.
> I wonder if vegatarians masterbate.. think of all the little sperm killed by 1 simple shower time fun.
> [snapback]834588[/snapback]​


LMFAO!!!


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Peacock said:


> well, they can die and go to hell, with me.
> I wonder if vegatarians masterbate.. think of all the little sperm killed by 1 simple shower time fun.
> [snapback]834588[/snapback]​


LMAO

I've never thought about the millions of sperm killed by jerking .


----------



## *DaisyDarko* (Mar 17, 2004)

Peacock said:


> well, they can die and go to hell, with me.
> [snapback]834588[/snapback]​


I'll tell Autumn, she'll be happy to know that.


----------



## jrs1 (Oct 5, 2004)

I eat meat cuz I need something with substance. A little weight to it. Vegetables and soup or whatever is my appetizer, I could never make a meal out of it. I eat meat every single day. I work with a guy that's vegeterean and my ex-brother in-law is too. They both look like the guy from the movie powder. But I respect their decision to not eat meat.


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

I like how we have a guy that is well versed in philosophy when almost everyone else is not(including me).

But can something be both morally correct and immoral? Who decides that killing an animal for food is immoral?

I know people posting definitions from dictionary.com is lame but here goes:

moral:
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

What is the underlying theme of all those definitions? It seems to me that most of them say psychological, liklihood and words like that. To me, that means that a moral is subjective, e.g. in someone's head, and not as concrete as some in this thread believe.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

*DaisyDarko* said:


> I'll tell Autumn, she'll be happy to know that.
> [snapback]834607[/snapback]​


WHos autumn?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Judazz brought up a good point of the "brain food" concept. I'll add two more. We have canines, a good meat eating tool, maybe circumstantial evidence. The lack of a cecum (actually a much reduced one) is not circumstantial. We seem geared towards eating just about everything. Morality? Don't feel like making the giant posts on that. I do think that even meat eaters should know there are lines to draw (like vegans). Veal? Baby seals? Humans? Lamb?

Just thought I'd be rude by throwing fuel to the fire and then leaving!









By the way, I'd like to see someone who's diet has been only pills their whole life.


----------



## *DaisyDarko* (Mar 17, 2004)

Filo said:


> WHos autumn?
> [snapback]834653[/snapback]​


My 14 year old vegan daughter.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

scrubbs said:


> I like how we have a guy that is well versed in philosophy when almost everyone else is not(including me).
> 
> But can something be both morally correct and immoral? Who decides that killing an animal for food is immoral?
> 
> ...


Most of those definition deal with right/wrong, goodness/badness, etc. It seems almost everyone who has posted on this thread believes morality is subjective. If it is, then how can we effectively make laws? If one person thinks it is ok to kill a man, how can he be persecuted? If morality is in fact subjective, we should completely get rid of our justice system. If someone steals your car, don't be mad, because according to them, it is ok. If you agree that morality is subjective, and morality deals with right and wrong, then no one can be wrong, since everyone only wants to do right. What may seem wrong to one person may be completely right to another. This completely eliminates wrongdoing. Do you see how absurd this is? There obviously must be some sort of standard good and standard bad. The knowledge of the standard good and standard bad is morality. Morality is a truth. Whether we choose to follow/ listen to the truth morality brings us is our values.

*For anyone who disagrees that morality is objective, and therefore still beleives that it is subjective, i would like you to answer this question. Is there absolute, universal truth?*


----------



## Scooby (Dec 25, 2003)

mmmmm bacon...


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

Ladies and gentlemen, hide your eyes because this is probably gonna be a long one seeing as I wasn't able to get at the computer yesterday... Work and that thing called friday night ya know









I'm going to try to address the last main comments made by the main people in here thus far.

Ok, here we go:



> Twitch basically hit the spot. Pac, the whole concept of morality and given rights is just that, a concept. We've created it. And before animal rights and all of this other hippie crap was conceived, we were still eating animals. We have classified ourselves as animals and there is nothing that says otherwise. And like other carnivorous or omnivorous animals we eat meat. When we eat meat it's of a less dominant specie.





> And what is morality dude? Again it's a human concept that doesn't actually exist. There is no morality in nature and only humans subscribe to it and even then it's subjective.


To Mr. Twitch and Hyphen, I can't believe that you think that morality doesn't truly exist. Morality is one of the main reasons that we don't currently have anarchy. Another great point that someone else brought up is "Why don't we just eat each other?!", which is definite proof that morality exists, at least in westernized society. Morality affects our every day lives and our perception on life in general. It does vary from person to person, however the majority can be wrong.

Morality is defined as follows:



> concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct


Or



> motivation based on ideas of right and wrong


So obviously from those examples, it's a simple matter of right and wrong.... That's real simple eh?!









So we now have to get to the base of the argument; what makes animals ok to kill but not humans? What is the main difference? I really can't see any...



> I feel I should mention that every single homonid species that became a specialized herbivore went extinct.


They don't have the mental capacity that we do. They also weren't at the top of the food chain either therefore your statement is unfounded.



> Nothing gives us the "right" to do anything, we do it because we want to. Those that feel the need to save an animal's life has the choice of going vegetarian or vegan. Food is food, we're predators and thus our prey get predated.


That doesn't justify the killing of the animal though.



> Let's put it that way: as soon as our ancestors started eating meat instead of just plant matter, their brains started to grow fast, giving them a competitive edge over their plant-eating neighbours, eventually enabling humanity to evolve the way it has (wheter that's a good thing is another matter) - that's an evolutionary fact.


Yes, fact is fact, however the advantage came from proper nutrition; which CAN be attained by eating meat. We can gain that same advantage from NOT eating meat.



> More importantly: if meat didn't taste so damn good, I'm sure humans would have let cows, pigs, horses and all those other "victimized" animal species alone.


That doesn't mean it's moral.



> She does take suppliments, but since becoming vegan I have noticed that she is tired all the time, and get's sick easily.
> connection?


Probably not eating a balanced diet.



> Vegetarians are stupid. People are entitled to their own views, of course, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their view is correct.


I'll leave your two contradicting sentences as is for you to realize how dumb that statement really was.



> If God didn't want us to eat animals then why did he make them out of meat?










Actually made me smile! Thanks baby











> By that rationale, we should start a petition to stop the harvesting of carrots. Everytime a field is harvested, there is a holocaust.


Nice Tool reference. Undertow was decent











> Judazz brought up a good point of the "brain food" concept. I'll add two more. We have canines, a good meat eating tool, maybe circumstantial evidence. The lack of a cecum (actually a much reduced one) is not circumstantial. We seem geared towards eating just about everything.


Couldn't we blame that on 2000 years of meat eating?



> Baby seals?


That actually makes me think of a point here. Society gets so upset when they hear of killing baby seals, however I could club a baby calf, make up some veal, toss it on a plate for ya and you'd be all smiles! We could easily eat seal yet society would think it's gross, so we kill them solely for their fur... What's wrong here!?



> Most of those definition deal with right/wrong, goodness/badness, etc. It seems almost everyone who has posted on this thread believes morality is subjective. If it is, then how can we effectively make laws?


Excellent point. As stated above, if you can't define morality or the battle of good and bad as an existing force, think of that statement or the points I touched on above.

Phew... That about does it I believe.

Pac


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

man, learn how to quote--cant understand sh*t that you said...


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

To answer the question on the morality of eating meat, i would like to quote peter kreeft


> And, of course, humans are superior to animals. *If you doubt this, you'd better stop eating fish or start eating humans.* Higher (more intelligent) animals are superior to lower (less intelligent) animals. That's why we prefer dogs to worms as pets. Even biologists rank species in a hierarchical order. The more complex they are, the more conscious they are and the more sophisticated their functions.


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

Filo said:


> man, learn how to quote--cant understand sh*t that you said...
> [snapback]835426[/snapback]​


I think I had too many... The code is correct...

Pac


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

So we now have to get to the base of the argument; what makes animals ok to kill but not humans? What is the main difference? I really can't see any...

so uhhh this is your question? not trying to be a prick but seems like a dumb question, lets say someone walks in your house with a shot gun and says to you and your family, "one of you is going to die, including the goddam dog..but i will leave it up too you to determin which one has to go, vote amonst your selves on who the unfortunate one will be", now uhhhh would you vote for moms or your dog..now ask yourself why...thiers your answer..

btw: if you actually had to debate whether the dog or your mom goes, then sorry i have no business uhhh debating this with you.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> *For anyone who disagrees that morality is objective, and therefore still beleives that it is subjective, i would like you to answer this question. Is there absolute, universal truth?*
> [snapback]835292[/snapback]​


No, there isn't: even people that share the same closeknit religious sect/group think/feel different about certain issues.

Even when you try to ram it through other people's throats by the use of brute force doesn't it make true for those people.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> No, there isn't: even people that share the same closeknit religious sect/group think/feel different about certain issues.
> 
> Even when you try to ram it through other people's throats by the use of brute force doesn't it make true for those people.
> [snapback]835604[/snapback]​


If there is no universal truth, then how are you an authority on truth? Why should anybody listen to you?

If there is no truth, how do we know anything exists? Wouldn't something have to be true to it's form to exist?

If i'm not mistaken i've just proven there is, in fact, a universal truth.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

I think im gonna go kill a damn duck and eat it!


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

Liquid said:


> So we now have to get to the base of the argument; what makes animals ok to kill but not humans? What is the main difference? I really can't see any...


I can. Intellectual superiority; aka bigger brains.



> so uhhh this is your question? not trying to be a prick but seems like a dumb question, lets say someone walks in your house with a shot gun and says to you and your family, "one of you is going to die, including the goddam dog..but i will leave it up too you to determin which one has to go, vote amonst your selves on who the unfortunate one will be", now uhhhh would you vote for moms or your dog..now ask yourself why...thiers your answer..


Welcome to morality at its roots my friend. Your moral and cultural upbringing tells you that your mom is the obvious choice.

Now consider your dog or you favorite plant?











> No, there isn't: even people that share the same closeknit religious sect/group think/feel different about certain issues.


I mentioned in my inital post that discussing religion in here is probably a bad idea seeing as it'll take this thread totally off course. Morality has nothing to do with religion but everything to do with faith.

Pac


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

^ there u go! Quote that sh*t! (liquid did not say that)


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

you guys just fucked me up..i did not, i repeat..did not say this"

"-So we now have to get to the base of the argument; what makes animals ok to kill but not humans? What is the main difference? I really can't see any..."

i was trying to quote the above statement off of pacmans post, this was his statement, so how in the world of pop tarts are you ansering your own question..the reason why i quoted it in the first place was because i thought it was a dumb question..i may be a sick f*ck but i do feel there is a big diffrence between humans and animals..

p.s this quote bullshit doesn't work right all the time.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

sorry liquid, i was just reading what pacman had...dont sue me for slander just yet!


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Here's my question how can someone be againest eating animals, but then turn around an support abortion? Its things like this that f*ck morality up. I know someone who thinks this way btw.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Filo said:


> sorry liquid, i was just reading what pacman had...dont sue me for slander just yet!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:laugh: in no way do i want to be affiliated with that statement
was trying to help him understand the logic behind that question


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

While we're on animals, what gives us the right to have fish and other animals as pets? They would be better off in the wild where they belong.

Nothing gives us the right, we do it because we want to, in our eyes its ok to have pets, in others its not - so which is right? Really this topic could go on and on, and never get anywhere.

So go ahead and bullshit yourselves that everything has the same rights, values, and the same morality.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

User said:


> While we're on animals, what gives us the right to have fish and other animals as pets? They would be better off in the wild where they belong.
> 
> Nothing gives us the right, we do it because we want to, in our eyes its ok to have pets, in others its not - so which is right?
> 
> ...


well for some fucked up reason my wife walked in a couple of days ago with a baby pigeon with a broken wing, i ask her uuuhhh whats up with the pigeon and she tells me she found it outside in the cold and it has a broken wing, she then went out and bought a bird cage ect. amd insists we keep this thing untill the summer, im like what ever floats your boat but i guess the pigeon is better off as as a pet in this case...now that i think about it my p's would probably be dead by now with the dry season that happens in thier original habitat, but regardless, we are at the top of the food chain at the moment, so for the most we have what ever options we want available to us and everything else is matter of opinion.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

^ pigions carry a lot of sh*t diseases


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

this is all personal opinion.. nothing is right or wrong.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Filo said:


> ^ pigions carry a lot of sh*t diseases
> [snapback]835688[/snapback]​


humans carry more.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Filo said:


> ^ pigions carry a lot of sh*t diseases
> [snapback]835688[/snapback]​


baby pigions?? and can humans catch them?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Liquid said:


> baby pigions?? and can humans catch them?
> [snapback]835695[/snapback]​


you can catch diseases from everything.. but yes, baby pigeons can have disease, and most likely do.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Liquid said:


> baby pigions?? and can humans catch them?
> [snapback]835695[/snapback]​


Yes and Yes


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Liquid said:


> well for some fucked up reason my wife walked in a couple of days ago with a baby pigeon with a broken wing, i ask her uuuhhh whats up with the pigeon and she tells me she found it outside in the cold and it has a broken wing, she then went out and bought a bird cage ect. amd insists we keep this thing untill the summer, im like what ever floats your boat but i guess the pigeon is better off as as a pet in this case...now that i think about it my p's would probably be dead by now with the dry season that happens in thier original habitat, but regardless, we are at the top of the food chain at the moment, so for the most we have what ever options we want available to us and everything else is matter of opinion.
> [snapback]835685[/snapback]​


Really? those things can carry a sh*t load of diseases.

Anyways, yes your P's could be dead in the wild by now, so then maybe humans are better at what nature does.









Maybe nature should be put on trail for the tsunami deads. I'm sure those people effect by that really gives a sh*t about morality, nature, god whatever word you want to use.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Peacock said:


> you can catch diseases from everything.. but yes, baby pigeons can have disease, and most likely do.
> [snapback]835696[/snapback]​


 hes going out in the garage then, but i have a feeling she is going to fight me untill she is blue in the head on this one, i'm gonna give my local vet a call monday see if its worth sleeping on the couch for the next week or not


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Liquid said:


> hes going out in the garage then, but i have a feeling she is going to fight me untill she is blue in the head on this one, i'm gonna give my local vet a call monday see if its worth sleeping on the couch for the next week or not
> [snapback]835702[/snapback]​


just give the pigeon to an animal rescue facility... they are social animals and need to be around others of their own species.. if kept away it can damage the animal mentaly.

human contact is also a down side.. if you keep the pigeon it will not be capable of adapting to the wild in the summer.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Liquid said:


> hes going out in the garage then, but i have a feeling she is going to fight me untill she is blue in the head on this one, i'm gonna give my local vet a call monday see if its worth sleeping on the couch for the next week or not
> [snapback]835702[/snapback]​


Ha... my girlfriend told me to sleep on the couch a few weeks back, and I did - but first I moved the couch into the bedroom and mashed the couch up beside the bed and watched t.v all night.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

LOL classic User, nice, very nice.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Peacock said:


> just give the pigeon to an animal rescue facility... they are social animals and need to be around others of their own species.. if kept away it can damage the animal mentaly.
> 
> human contact is also a down side.. if you keep the pigeon it will not be capable of adapting to the wild in the summer.
> [snapback]835709[/snapback]​


problem solved, she can't argue with me on that :laugh:

..last time i had to sleep on the couch was 4th of july..got her sisters new borfriend drunk, guess he couldnt hold his liquer and ended up embaressing himself in front of everyone and some where in the middle it all ended up my fault. whatever, she knows i have my limits and then its her ass thats on the couch :laugh:..or at least i like to tell myself that..


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Liquid said:


> problem solved, she can't argue with me on that :laugh:
> 
> ..last time i had to sleep on the couch was 4th of july..got her sisters new borfriend drunk, guess he couldnt hold his liquer and ended up embaressing himself in front of everyone and some where in the middle it all ended up my fault. whatever, she knows i have my limits and then its her ass thats on the couch :laugh:..or at least i like to tell myself that..
> [snapback]835720[/snapback]​


and if she does argue.. give her my number and tell her to call me.. i will be happy to argue pigeon care over the phone.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Peacock said:


> and if she does argue.. give her my number and tell her to call me.. i will be happy to argue pigeon care over the phone.
> [snapback]835725[/snapback]​


dude..you will loose, thier is no winning even if you are right and the facts are right in front of her face..trust me, woman have a way of tuning what you say out and only hear thier own voice, and once she has you tuned out, you will know that you are talking to a brick wall or feel like she really cant f*cking hear you, because she will continue to repeat her side which has already been proven wrong as if you are not even speaking...you can talk, yell...pray untill every single vein in your head is sticking out and you will end up asking your self why the f*ck is she not shuting the hell up and listening for one second.. i have learned how to comunicate with the female species..in this instance i will surprize her with some pretty bird i will end up picking up from my lps, then after giving it to her, i will have her ear and then explain why we must give the baby pigion to a shelter. and all will be good







so let it be written..let it be done..


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> Most of those definition deal with right/wrong, goodness/badness, etc. It seems almost everyone who has posted on this thread believes morality is subjective. If it is, then how can we effectively make laws? If one person thinks it is ok to kill a man, how can he be persecuted? If morality is in fact subjective, we should completely get rid of our justice system. If someone steals your car, don't be mad, because according to them, it is ok. If you agree that morality is subjective, and morality deals with right and wrong, then no one can be wrong, since everyone only wants to do right. What may seem wrong to one person may be completely right to another. This completely eliminates wrongdoing. Do you see how absurd this is? There obviously must be some sort of standard good and standard bad. The knowledge of the standard good and standard bad is morality. Morality is a truth. Whether we choose to follow/ listen to the truth morality brings us is our values.
> 
> *For anyone who disagrees that morality is objective, and therefore still beleives that it is subjective, i would like you to answer this question. Is there absolute, universal truth?*
> [snapback]835292[/snapback]​


is it possible to have different levels of morality? Can everything we do be questioned on the grounds of morality? This is how i have a problem with this argument. Most humans agree that killing someone else is wrong(morally and legally). But, most humans do not question whether it is even morally correct to kill animals. It does not even cross their minds.

This debate is somewhat confusing. Because there are some universal morals that most people will accept. But there are others that not everyone follows.

And by the way, where does reason fit into this debate? I mean, if we all agree that killing someone is morally wrong, why do people say the death penalty is ok. Because there is a reason to do this. People believe that the ends justify the means. Most governers would agree that it is morally wrong to kill a human. Yet, they do not grant clemency in all cases. Is it because they are far removed from being the actual exectutioner? Or is it that there is a valid reason to do it?

So what is our reason to kill animals for food? It gives nutrition, tastes good, you can do jsut about anything with it, etc. Although, i think most agree it is ok because WE ARE at the top of the food chain and we have the capacity to do it.

What is the punishment for being immoral? If i think it is immoral to kill a cow for food, what happens to me if i eat a steak? I dont believe in an afterlife, so hell is not an answer. Is karma gonna come bit eme in the ass?


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> If there is no universal truth, then how are you an authority on truth? Why should anybody listen to you?
> 
> If there is no truth, how do we know anything exists? Wouldn't something have to be true to it's form to exist?
> 
> ...


No you did not. For someone who is bringing up aristotle and making refference to philosophers you make some pretty wide ranging assumptions that no student of philosophy would be foolish enough to make.

We don't know anything exists at all for starters. In a dream you assume the ground you walk on exists yet it's quite clearly a figment of your imagination. We don't know at all that this is any different than our waking reality no matter what you would like to believe. The reality we perceive is just an abstraction of a deeper level of reality that scientists are yet to grasp (read: Quantum Physics). Some believe all of our universe is made up of vibrating filaments of energy (string theory) others believe all that we perceive in this world is the result of waveforms in the Implicate order of the universe that our brain and consciousness molds into the world we perceive (Holographic model of the universe). It's already proven that you, myself, the sky or your neighbour's dog is not at all what they look like, but are at a more fundamental level a collection of electrons, protons, nuetrons and whatnot. Do we see a collection of atoms when we look at each other? No, we see our abstractions like a hand, a door, a glass of water of whatever. It's just our perception and construct of the universe that lets us think "this object is solid" when in fact it's only a collection of something we don't entirely understand (quantum physics). As we do not know enough to explain even our known realm of the universe let alone the infinite possibilities of other universes and their governing set of rules, you can not say anything is a universal truth because you don't have that information.

Since you like to name drop about what we should read to grasp what you're thinking, maybe you should put down the ancient philosophy and refer yourself to David Bohm (Holographic Universe), Stephen Hawking (String Theory and Quantum Physics), Aldous Huxley (Doors of Perception) and some eastern philosophies on the nature of reality and consciousness as the whole aristotle business is so out of date it's hardly relevant.


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

1: Stop the bullshit about pigeons in here. PMs are here for a reason.
2: Liquid: Sorry for the wrong quote... I seem to have thought I quoted something else seeing as my answer isn't really consistant to what I've been saying...











> Can everything we do be questioned on the grounds of morality?


Sure can... It would be a rough go though











> But, most humans do not question whether it is even morally correct to kill animals. It does not even cross their minds.


Which is exactly why I'm bringing it up. We look back at ancient civilizations and are apalled about certain things that they've done. Eating meat could be a similar thing when we're looked back upon.



> So what is our reason to kill animals for food? It gives nutrition, tastes good, you can do jsut about anything with it, etc. Although, i think most agree it is ok because WE ARE at the top of the food chain and we have the capacity to do it.


True, but other things taste good, other things give us proper nutrition and we can do just about anything if we omitted meat. So why is it *moral* to kill animals for no reason?



> What is the punishment for being immoral? If i think it is immoral to kill a cow for food, what happens to me if i eat a steak? I dont believe in an afterlife, so hell is not an answer. Is karma gonna come bit eme in the ass?


Punishment in this life would be whatever the state decides or whatever society deems appropriate. Let's not discuss the supposed reality of the afterlife though









@Mr. Twitcho: I see you're well read when it comes to physics baby







Glad to see intellectuals here. I'm not a big personal fan of Aristotle, however I wouldn't say that most of what he says is irrelevant . I'd rather read Plato if I had to read ancient Greek philosophy though







His thoughts on justice are good to read and his narrative style peaks the interrest.

EDIT: Too many "howevers"









Pac


----------



## WorldBelow07 (Dec 16, 2004)




----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

PacmanXSA said:


> @Mr. Twitcho: I see you're well read when it comes to physics baby
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not that it's irrelevant, it's that I just don't like him


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

> Sure can... It would be a rough go though


And a severe waste of time.



> Which is exactly why I'm bringing it up. We look back at ancient civilizations and are apalled about certain things that they've done. Eating meat could be a similar thing when we're looked back upon.


Or people could continue to not question it and continue eating meat.



> True, but other things taste good, other things give us proper nutrition and we can do just about anything if we omitted meat. So why is it moral to kill animals for no reason?


Or we could continue to eat meat and not change our whole agricultural system and way of life. What other things taste good? Plants and veggies? If so, then i can't understand the difference between the death of a carrot and the death of a holstein. This, in turn, can be countered with, "what is the difference between the death of a cow and the death of a human?" Well, we are the same species for one. We don't see cows killing each other either. That is what makes killing humans immoral. They are the same as you. Maybe different coloured skin, but still the same species.

All my your points can be countered with the opposite, and neither would be wrong.

I still ask the question, can't there be different degrees of morals? Or is the morality of something like death of a plant the same as that of a human? Where do we draw the line?

The immorality of killing a human has been ingrained in our minds since birth. You cannot classify the morality of killing a cow as being the same as the morality of killing a fellow human. Why you may ask? Because. Cows are a lesser species. We are humans and have the capacity to think like this. We do it because we can and nothing is stopping us.

And to the poster that says morality is concrete and set by some universal truth, what is that universal truth's stance on eating meat? If it is immoral, then tell the world. If not, then why are we debating this.

By the way, i have not taken any philosophy classes in uni, as my major doesnt allow any time for it. I have a hard time following what some of you are talking about









p.s. i am rather enjoying this thread. It is a breath of fresh air. No more of the liberal vs. conservative iraq threads that regurgitate the same stuff. And pidgeon talk can go in another thread, like pacman said.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> Couldn't we blame that on 2000 years of meat eating?


No. Evolution of the features we have did not evolve in 2000 years. That is less than a blink in geologic time or evolution of such features.

New thoughts to interject. What about the morality of eating plants? They aren't fuzzy with two eyes, but they are alive. They don't move fast but they have evolved hundreds if not thousands of ways to keep from being eaten. Is that not a sign of their resistance?....

Please continue...


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

scrubbs said:


> And a severe waste of time.


Agreed for the most part.



> Or people could continue to not question it and continue eating meat.
> Or we could continue to eat meat and not change our whole agricultural system and way of life.


I'm sorry if the deaths of millions of animals per day would inconvenience you.



> What other things taste good? Plants and veggies? If so, then i can't understand the difference between the death of a carrot and the death of a holstein. This, in turn, can be countered with, "what is the difference between the death of a cow and the death of a human?" Well, we are the same species for one. We don't see cows killing each other either. That is what makes killing humans immoral. They are the same as you. Maybe different coloured skin, but still the same species.
> All my your points can be countered with the opposite, and neither would be wrong.





> New thoughts to interject. What about the morality of eating plants? They aren't fuzzy with two eyes, but they are alive. They don't move fast but they have evolved hundreds if not thousands of ways to keep from being eaten. Is that not a sign of their resistance?....


Let me answer both of your similar questions by defining the main difference between animals and plants; the brain/nerves. Animals possess strong feelings like fear, pain and the like, whereas plants do not. The only difference between the animals and us is the more developped brain; which entitles us to discuss morality issues :nod:



> I still ask the question, can't there be different degrees of morals? Or is the morality of something like death of a plant the same as that of a human? Where do we draw the line?


I believe so. I would personally consider murder much more severe than something like theft, however that's an entirely different discussion.



> The immorality of killing a human has been ingrained in our minds since birth. You cannot classify the morality of killing a cow as being the same as the morality of killing a fellow human. Why you may ask? Because. Cows are a lesser species. We are humans and have the capacity to think like this. We do it because we can and nothing is stopping us.


But you're missing the point. Our brains and power allow us to be the greater good. We have the power to make the decisions that affect the animals. My morality tells me that the life of a human is greater than a cow, however the cows life is still worth something; so why kill it if we don't HAVE to. That's the question at hand my good man.



> By the way, i have not taken any philosophy classes in uni, as my major doesnt allow any time for it. I have a hard time following what some of you are talking about


Bah, don't worry baby, I've only taken one basic human philosophy class. It's just about thinking and the thought process in general. You don't have to be an expert or anything. Some of us are just a little more well read. If you want suggested readings however, I'd be glad to point out men like Marx, Seneca and Descartes. They're my personal favorites. The first two are kind of extremists though, but whatever











> No. Evolution of the features we have did not evolve in 2000 years. That is less than a blink in geologic time or evolution of such features.


I just tossed in 2000 years for arguments sake. We have been eating meat since the prehistoric ages. I think a million years is grounds for evolution don't ya think baby?!









Pac


----------



## dwarfcat (Sep 21, 2004)

You have too much time on your hands..........


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

Peacock said:


> this is all personal opinion.. nothing is right or wrong.
> [snapback]835693[/snapback]​


How do we know that what you said is right if nothing is right or wrong?


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> No you did not. For someone who is bringing up aristotle and making refference to philosophers you make some pretty wide ranging assumptions that no student of philosophy would be foolish enough to make.
> 
> We don't know anything exists at all for starters. In a dream you assume the ground you walk on exists yet it's quite clearly a figment of your imagination. We don't know at all that this is any different than our waking reality no matter what you would like to believe. The reality we perceive is just an abstraction of a deeper level of reality that scientists are yet to grasp (read: Quantum Physics). Some believe all of our universe is made up of vibrating filaments of energy (string theory) others believe all that we perceive in this world is the result of waveforms in the Implicate order of the universe that our brain and consciousness molds into the world we perceive (Holographic model of the universe). It's already proven that you, myself, the sky or your neighbour's dog is not at all what they look like, but are at a more fundamental level a collection of electrons, protons, nuetrons and whatnot. Do we see a collection of atoms when we look at each other? No, we see our abstractions like a hand, a door, a glass of water of whatever. It's just our perception and construct of the universe that lets us think "this object is solid" when in fact it's only a collection of something we don't entirely understand (quantum physics). As we do not know enough to explain even our known realm of the universe let alone the infinite possibilities of other universes and their governing set of rules, you can not say anything is a universal truth because you don't have that information.
> 
> ...


If we don't know anything at all exists, how can we know the difference between a dream state and awake state? How do you know the theory of quntum physics, the string theory, or any of the other theories you mentioned exist. If truth is sunjective, why should any of those theories be applicable to anyone else except for the person who came up with the theory?

We DO know things exist, and there ARE universal truths. For example, if me and you are standing next to eachother and look at a lightbulb, why do we both recognize it as a lightbulb? Why doesn't one of us say, "oh look, what a beautiful horse"? If we both are looking at a circle, why doesn't one of us call it a triangle?

As to the eastern philosophies, from what i have read, they are widely flawed. If we get started on the transmigration of the soul, things are bound to get both confusing and ugly.

The reason why i refer to Aristotle so much is he was the person who put an end to the sophistry that was happening at the time, and he was the first to explain natural law. We seem to be in a similar situation, that is why he was so fitting to mention. Maybe i'll quote Plato. Or if thats still to outdated, i'll bring in some Adler or Kreeft.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

scrubbs said:


> And a severe waste of time.
> Or people could continue to not question it and continue eating meat.
> Or we could continue to eat meat and not change our whole agricultural system and way of life. What other things taste good? Plants and veggies? If so, then i can't understand the difference between the death of a carrot and the death of a holstein. This, in turn, can be countered with, "what is the difference between the death of a cow and the death of a human?" Well, we are the same species for one. We don't see cows killing each other either. That is what makes killing humans immoral. They are the same as you. Maybe different coloured skin, but still the same species.
> All my your points can be countered with the opposite, and neither would be wrong.
> ...


I beleive it was stated before that morality does not affect the animal kingdom. A cow, or a plant cannot know what is moral or immoral. I direct you to my above post where i quoted peter kreeft to answer if it is moral to eat meat.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Umbilical Syllables said:


> If we don't know anything at all exists, how can we know the difference between a dream state and awake state?
> [snapback]836687[/snapback]​


The fact that we know the difference between a dream and a waking state doesn't show that anything exists, just that we are able to distinguish between the two states. On top of that, we often don't know if we are dreaming or awake while in a dream. Those people who have trained themselves to have lucid dreams are able to recognize dreams from reality because certain things have different subjective qualities, like inconsistent readings if you look at a watch. That doesn't have anything to do with wether anything exists at all though, who's to say you won't wake up tommorow from this life which was a decade long dream in another form of existence?



Umbilical Syllables said:


> How do you know the theory of quntum physics, the string theory, or any of the other theories you mentioned exist. If truth is sunjective, why should any of those theories be applicable to anyone else except for the person who came up with the theory?[snapback]836687[/snapback]​


It doesn't exist beyond being an idea, just like right or wrong. We don't know it is true either and no physicist will ever attempt to say that it is a universal truth, just that it is the best guess we have of our current known universe based on what little information we have. It's a way of explaining what we think the world is, it's an idea, just like any other idea with no concrete existence.



Umbilical Syllables said:


> We DO know things exist, and there ARE universal truths. For example, if me and you are standing next to eachother and look at a lightbulb, why do we both recognize it as a lightbulb? Why doesn't one of us say, "oh look, what a beautiful horse"? If we both are looking at a circle, why doesn't one of us call it a triangle?[snapback]836687[/snapback]​


How DO you know something exists? In a dream you can pick up an apple, you can throw the apple, you can do anything you want with it. You are positive it exists, and then you wake up. Without knowing the fundamental state of the chair you're sitting on, how do you know it's any different?

As for the bulb, thatt's not a universal truth, that's an idea both of us can agree on. You don't know that everywhere in the universe that lightbulb is a lightbulb so you can't say that. You can _guess_ that it will remain a light bulb everywhere we go but considering we know very little about the universe you can't know for sure. We only operate in 4 dimensions, and there are estimated to be 11 or so dimensions. For all you know when you work in all 11 dimensions everything is the same, or everything is different, or nothing exists at all. As far as scientific evidence points it is not a lightbulb, it is the result of vibrating strings, as all things are. The idea of it being a lightbulb is just an abstraction on it's true nature. We can both agree that it is a lightbulb because we both are familiar with the abstraction of what a lightbulb is.

Consider this example, we are both looking at two video screens of two fish in a tank. We agree that we are both looking at two fish, you would like to believe this is a universal truth because you and I both say "oh look, two fish". However we later find out that we were looking at the same fish, but from two different camera angles and one camera was on a five second delay. Both of us thought it was two fish and you thought it was a universal truth, but when we got more information on the matter we were both indeed quite wrong. That's your lightbulb, your circle or whatever else.



Umbilical Syllables said:


> As to the eastern philosophies, from what i have read, they are widely flawed. If we get started on the transmigration of the soul, things are bound to get both confusing and ugly.
> [snapback]836687[/snapback]​


I'm not reffering to transmigration of the soul, I'm referring to the subjective experience of reality, something heavily centered in eastern philosophy that strangely coincides with alot of ideas in physics centuries later.


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> *The fact that we know the difference between a dream and a waking state doesn't show that anything exists, just that we are able to distinguish between the two states.* On top of that, we often don't know if we are dreaming or awake while in a dream. Those people who have trained themselves to have lucid dreams are able to recognize dreams from reality because certain things have different subjective qualities, like inconsistent readings if you look at a watch. That doesn't have anything to do with wether anything exists at all though, who's to say you won't wake up tommorow from this life which was a decade long dream in another form of existence? [snapback]836717[/snapback]​


The fact that we can distinguish between the two states suggests that we can sense a difference between dream and reality. Maybe you have, but i have never been able to smell, touch, or taste in a dream. Not all the senses are active when we dream. In fact, only one is. From your posts, you sound like a educated man, and so i would assume you are aware of the discovery of two additional senses (this is not something new). These two sense are memory and imagination. In a dream, only our sense of imagination is "working". To suggest that reality is not concrete, and that nothing is real would suggest we only use our sense and nothing else. If you do only rely on your senses, you are not a human, but an animal. Humans have intellect, and the ability to interpret, not just percieve (like animals). The use of ones intellect is fundamental to knowing reality is real.



elTwitcho said:


> It doesn't exist beyond being an idea, just like right or wrong. We don't know it is true either and no physicist will ever attempt to say that it is a universal truth, just that it is the best guess we have of our current known universe based on what little information we have. It's a way of explaining what we think the world is, it's an idea, just like any other idea with no concrete existence.[snapback]836717[/snapback]​


I agree that no idea has concrete existence. After all, how can something immaterial, like an idea, be material? It comes from the mind, meaning it is immaterial. And by mind, i do not mean the physical brain. This is also why we cannot "see" morality, or any other objective truth. It cannot be put in a can. It is immaterial. We must use our mind and intellect to know the immaterial.


elTwitcho said:


> How DO you know something exists? In a dream you can pick up an apple, you can throw the apple, you can do anything you want with it. You are positive it exists, and then you wake up. Without knowing the fundamental state of the chair you're sitting on, how do you know it's any different?
> 
> As for the bulb, thatt's not a universal truth, that's an idea both of us can agree on. You don't know that everywhere in the universe that lightbulb is a lightbulb so you can't say that. You can _guess_ that it will remain a light bulb everywhere we go but considering we know very little about the universe you can't know for sure. We only operate in 4 dimensions, and there are estimated to be 11 or so dimensions. For all you know when you work in all 11 dimensions everything is the same, or everything is different, or nothing exists at all. As far as scientific evidence points it is not a lightbulb, it is the result of vibrating strings, as all things are. The idea of it being a lightbulb is just an abstraction on it's true nature. We can both agree that it is a lightbulb because we both are familiar with the abstraction of what a lightbulb is.
> 
> ...


If the bulb is an idea that both of us agree on, it must mean that the idea of a bulb is common, perhaps _universal_? Let me try to clarify universal truths a bit more. Another example is that the part cannot be greater than the whole. How can this not be true? To suggest a subjective reality means that to some, the part is in fact greater than the whole.

Now as to your indirect reference to Einsteins theory of relativity (specifically the principle of simultanety), i have been working on a philisophical argument, but it is still in the works, seeing as how i have a few school projects to tend to first. I'll post it when i'm done.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> I just tossed in 2000 years for arguments sake. We have been eating meat since the prehistoric ages. I think a million years is grounds for evolution don't ya think baby?!


Perhaps, but how old is morality?....

I think you, El Twitcho, and Umbillical need to have a typing/quoting contest!


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

acestro said:


> Perhaps, but how old is morality?....
> 
> I think you, El Twitcho, and Umbillical need to have a typing/quoting contest!
> [snapback]836905[/snapback]​


Morality came into place upon the birth of mankind. It has always been there.

They don't need a contest; they need a new thread to discuss existence vs. reality









Pac


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> Morality came into place upon the birth of mankind.


How easy is that moment to pinpoint?

And existence vs. reality has been creeping into many threads, not a bad idea to start a new one on just that.


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

back to the idea of the morality of eating meat...

Does the fact we breed the cows(or whatever other animal) for food matter at all? I think taht since we basically provided the correct situation for them to procreate, there is no moral right or wrong.


----------



## thoroughbred (Mar 14, 2003)

if i didnt eat cows and pigs, those sneaky bastards would try and eat me so i say ill get you 1st


----------



## Umbilical Syllables (Dec 16, 2004)

If you are still against eating meat because animals don't deserve to die, why does lettuce deserve to die? They're both living, and a lettuce is beautiful. Have you ever seen a lettuce with dew glistening off of it? Its a spectacular sight..

Your probably saying "eating lettuce and eating a cow is different." It is. It's in the heirarchy of nature. At the same time you should realise that eating a human is different from eating a cow. Because of the heirarchy of nature, it is ok to eat a cow, or pig, or chicken, or fish. Saying its not ok would imply we are at the same status as any of these animals, and i'm sure no one beleives a fish is their equal.


----------



## Black-Phoenix (Oct 21, 2003)

PacmanXSA said:


> Morality is one of the main reasons that we don't currently have anarchy. Another great point that someone else brought up is "Why don't we just eat each other?!", which is definite proof that morality exists, at least in westernized society. Morality affects our every day lives and our perception on life in general. It does vary from person to person, however the majority can be wrong.
> 
> [snapback]835406[/snapback]​


Morality has VERY little to do with it. Our leaders, our presidents of the world keep us alive and doing well. Do you know how many different clicks of people there are in is country that have strikeingly differnt morals? If some low life were to rape a member of my family or someone I love, I would feel morraly obligated to kill the son of a bitch. The only thing thatsaves that guys is the tread of persacution. There are also people out there that would say just because he was bad dose not give me the moral right to do harm to them. f*ck that. Our world leaders act as patrocs and matriocs in the animal kingdom. They set rules that alow their/our exsistance to continue and trive.

I have teath made for plant and animal matter. I eat both. I enjoy hunting. I also enjoy fishing. I also love and respect my girlfreind of 7 years that had not eaten meat in 12. There is deer on the game pole in the fall and chicken on the grill summer afternoons. We don't fight about this, EVER. She dosn't stand on any moral high ground over me she just dosn't feel comfortable with the idea of animals dieing for her to live at this point in her life. What right do I have o say she is wronge?

Having said this and opend myself up to flameing I must say, the comercial animal farms could be a bit more human in their dealings with the animals.


----------

