Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[OneEye]

I agree that my four-point syllogism is not the clearest statement of the case. Taken out of its original context, it is so vague and open to interpretation that it is useless for the discussion.

I want to answer all of the open issues which have been tabled by physicsfirst, learningphysics, and Dissident Dan. I think that the best way to do it is to develop a thesis which is not so prone to intepretation. This may seem too much like getting back to basics, but we will progress quickly.

Here is a two-point syllogism which, I hope, will clear up the matter completely:

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
   -------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

I welcome all responses to this syllogism. This would be the first response of a non-animal rights, non-ethical vegetarian to the ethical vegetarian/animal rights view - and it also turns out to expose the "fatal flaw" in the current state of animal rights reasoning.

For the less patient, here is a little snapshot of where we're going: Animals are not allowed to regulate human behavior according to their behavioral model, yet animal rights activists must ultimately allow any kind of animalistic behavior in humans, or must allow that humans have the moral authority to regulate the entire animal kingdom (in fact, the entirety of nature).

Key to my argument is to point out that there is a salient ("fundamental"/"essential") difference between humans and every other species. This difference is moral, and has to do with moral authority - the kind of moral authority which the animal rights movement expressly denies.

I don't want to spoil the discussion, though. I really would like someone - anyone to take on the three-plank argument above. I will be most pleased to see someone answer this question.

 

[Justinius]

OneEye:

Good syllogism, but I would like to question, do animals really have morals?

Dont get me wrong here, I am a huge meat-eater. Humans definitely should eat meat, unless for some health reason they can't. To be completely non-philosophical here, and kind of nutritionist, look at the proteins we are given and the health value of the meats. Certain cultures are told religiously that certain types of meat should not be consumed, an example is pork. We must remember, however, that these laws are ancient, and in the case of Judaism more than 5000 years old. The reason these cultures are told not to eat these "unclean" meats is because their laws are stuck in time. 5000 years ago, how could people determine that pork had to be cooked to completely white in order not to get salmonella poisoning?

Nowadays, people say that we shouldn't eat meat because of the sanctity of the life of all living organisms. Aren't carrots living too? To take this argument to a reductio ad absurdum, if one believes this, then they should not wash their hands using antibacterial soap, because they will be slaughtering millions of bacteria while doing so.

Humans are not just animals. I understand what you were trying to get at, but the main difference here is that we have the ability to reason, animals run purely on instinct. Moving away from that, I agree that it is INSTINCTUAL for carniverous animals to eat meat, and since the human instinct (for lack of a better word) tells us that we are omniverous, there should be nothing wrong with eating meat.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I agree that my four-point syllogism is not the clearest statement of the case. Taken out of its original context, it is so vague and open to interpretation that it is useless for the discussion.

i'm ok with that, oneeye.
your 4 statements weren't unclear, but the meaning of 'animal' was as you say 'open to interpretation'. thank you for taking the time to read through my 2 posts. i appreciate it.

i'm happy to move on to your next syllogism provided you and russ are satisfied that
a) your concerns about AR not addressing your 'contradiction' are alleviated
b) that your 4 point syllogism didn't entail a contradiction at all


in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

Certain cultures are told religiously that certain types of meat should not be consumed, an example is pork. We must remember, however, that these laws are ancient, and in the case of Judaism more than 5000 years old. The reason these cultures are told not to eat these "unclean" meats is because their laws are stuck in time.

Actually, the Jews were taught not to eat pork as a function of separation (a visible representation of their consecration to God). The peoples around them were successful and happy swineherders. And the book of Genesis (prior to the Mosaic dietary code) allows consumption of any animal.

It is a common mistake to try to find some pragmatic reason for laws like this (other examples include no fiber blends in their cloth, no mixed seed in their fields, and no mixed animals in the yoke). The Hebrew Bible demands that the Israelites regard these things as "abominations unto you". Other things are called "abominable" in and of themselves.

This is a very common misapprehension. Hope this clears that up.

 

[OneEye]

i'm happy to move on to your next syllogism provided you and russ are satisfied that
a) your concerns about AR not addressing your 'contradiction' are alleviated
b) that your 4 point syllogism didn't entail a contradiction at all

No, I don't really agree with those statements, as we will see if we can progress as I plan. Animal rights views do not address the contradiction, and my four-point syllogism does embody a contradiction in the animal rights position, so long as you interpret the (admittedly vague) terms according to their original context.

It is precisely these two points (yours) which I am trying to demonstrate. And this, I will do, if you will indulge me. And seeing as you have been so vocal so far, I would like to see you answer this most recent syllogism.

 

[physicsisphirst]

No, I don't really agree with those statements, as we will see if we can progress as I plan. Animal rights views do not address the contradiction, and my four-point syllogism does embody a contradiction in the animal rights position, so long as you interpret the (admittedly vague) terms according to their original context.

i'll deal with your amusing 3 pt syllogism after you recognize that there is no contradiction in your 4 pt syllogism. are you wishing to change your 4 pt item somehow or are you maintaining that it is fine the way you wrote it?

in friendship,
prad

 

[learningphysics]

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
   -------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

I welcome all responses to this syllogism. This would be the first response of a non-animal rights, non-ethical vegetarian to the ethical vegetarian/animal rights view - and it also turns out to expose the "fatal flaw" in the current state of animal rights reasoning.

For the less patient, here is a little snapshot of where we're going: Animals are not allowed to regulate human behavior according to their behavioral model, yet animal rights activists must ultimately allow any kind of animalistic behavior in humans, or must allow that humans have the moral authority to regulate the entire animal kingdom (in fact, the entirety of nature).

Key to my argument is to point out that there is a salient ("fundamental"/"essential") difference between humans and every other species. This difference is moral, and has to do with moral authority - the kind of moral authority which the animal rights movement expressly denies.

I don't want to spoil the discussion, though. I really would like someone - anyone to take on the three-plank argument above. I will be most pleased to see someone answer this question.

I disagree with the first statement. I suppose some AR folks might replace the statement by saying "It is moral for non-human animals to eat meat if they so desire". Would this unveil the fatal flaw you're referring too. I'd disagree with this statement too.

My position is this: "Humans and animals should behave in the way that minimizes pain and suffering". Now, sometimes this may involve animals eating meat (in order to survive or prevent their own hunger), or sometimes it may involve animals not eating meat (like the vegetarian dogs referred to in this thread).

Humans do have a greater capacity to create change in the world... I'd say they have a greater moral awareness (I wouldn't say humans are more moral, but perhaps more apt to understanding morality). I would not take humans to be unique in their moral awareness. Just as intelligence is on a continuum from lower life forms to more complex ones, I'd take moral awareness to be on a similar continuum.

Why do humans talk about how other humans should treat animals, instead of how other animals should treat animals? Well, because we can more easily influence and communicate with other humans. We can get other humans to stop eating meat without creating much suffering. Is there any way to influence the animal community in this way? It would be much more difficult. It's not that animals are morally correct in eating other animals, but it's difficult to prevent without creating more suffering than would have existed if the animal did the eating in the first place.

I'm also not saying it is always immoral for animals to eat other animals... I'm saying it depends on how much suffering is prevented, and how much is created... weighing the pros and cons... For example dogs that are vegetarian is an example that has already been brought up in this thread.

 

[OneEye]

i'll deal with your amusing 3 pt syllogism after you recognize that there is no contradiction in your 4 pt syllogism. are you wishing to change your 4 pt item somehow or are you maintaining that it is fine the way you wrote it?

If you want me to cop any plea for the 4-point syllogism, it will have to be nolo contendre. I do contend that, explained properly, the 4-point syllogism is accurate and valid. The three-point syllogism which I most recently proposed is the best way to prove that. So, if you want me to explain why I am sticking to my guns on the 4-point syllogism, the best way to do that is for you to answer the 3-point syllogism. If you want to accept my nolo contendre plea, you may then go on to deal with the 3-point syllogism. Either way, I think that the right way to go is for you to answer the 3-point syllogism. It at least has the benefit of being amusing.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Either way, I think that the right way to go is for you to answer the 3-point syllogism. It at least has the benefit of being amusing.

oh alright then!
your 3 pt item is either incorrect or tautology. here's why:


1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).


let us consider exactly what "an animal" is.
it is either a) human or b) non-human.


so if it is the latter your syllogism reads:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

now you can probably see that 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. (hence incorrectness).


and if it is the former your sillygism becomes tautology and looks like this:

1. It is moral for a human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

which is like saying if you are redundant, then you are redundant.


now, what do you want to do about your 4 pt thingy?

in friendship,
prad

 

[Be Happy!]

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
   -------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

I welcome all responses to this syllogism.

I most certainly agree with the 2nd premise. Humans are animals!

However, I believe that your first premise is incorrect. Non-human animals are not capable of the complex morality that humans can exhibit and should not be held morally responsible for their actions because they don’t have the same process of deductive reasoning as the human animal. To say that it is moral for them to eat meat, implies that they are able to make such decisions. Non-human animals are not moral agents in the same sense as we are (tho they have been shown to exhibit certain qualities such as altruism that show some degree of morality) but they are not capable of the same types of moral reflections as ADULT humans (animal behaviorists show that some primates, birds and other animals have the cognitive abilities of children) and should not be held to the same level of responsibility for their actions, just as we don’t hold a small child or a severely mentally disabled person to the same level of responsibility as an adult human.

However, humans are moral beings and are capable of complex deductive reasoning and should be held responsible for their actions. So let’s take a quick look at meat eating amongst humans. Unlike with some non-human animals, we do not NEED flesh in order to survive. Many doctors now agree that our bodies are similar to an herbivore and that we thrive on a plant-based diet. (The China Study- the largest population study ever done (100,000 people participated), concluded that a plant based diet is the ideal diet for the human body- I can discuss this in further detail if you like).

Like I said earlier, we do not need meat, we do desire it because it is what many of us are raised with. Not very often do we think about where our meat comes from. Industry would rather you not know how the animal was raised (often in filthy, cramped conditions), how the animal was slaughtered, nor the devastating effect our desire to eat meat has had on the environment. Though it is not the topic at hand, I am happy to further discuss any of these topics.

So if we can live healthily on plant-based foods and we know that a plant-based diet is better for the environment and does not cause the needless suffering of non-human animals, then morally how can we justify eating meat? Try as we may, the “desire” for meat is not a sufficient moral justification for this cruel practice.

Furthermore, we do not look to non-human animals to define our morality so why do it here? Non-human animals have been known to exhibit barbaric behaviors which we would never find acceptable. So, I suggest that we define the morality of eating meat based on the facts at hand and not because some non-human animals do it.

In conclusion, I hope I have clearly explained why non-human animals should not be held accountable for their actions and why humans should. I think it’s important to this argument to note that in the US over 27 billions animals are killed for food and there is nothing natural about it. They exist in horrendous conditions living in their own filth, not being able to move freely, and denied everything that is natural to them. Then at long last comes an end to their miserable lives, but even that isn’t easy as many animals are slaughtered while they are still fully conscious. Though many people would hate to admit this, pigs, cows, and chickens are individuals with feelings—they can feel love, happiness, loneliness, and fear, just as dogs, cats, and humans do. If we knowingly cause another individual to suffer and die needlessly, we must recognize that we are committing nothing less than a moral atrocity.



Sangeeta

 

[ranjana]

Wow, Sangeeta ! Excellent post!

in peace
Ranjana

 

[russ_watters]

I realize I've been absent for a day and have a lot to respond to, but for now I have only one thing:

Sangeeta, the argument that an cougar can't understand the morality of eating a deer, so its not wrong to do so has a pretty serious flaw: it has no basis in philosophy whatsoever. In fact, it goes directly against the existning philosophy of rights.

This isn't "right to kill" its "right to life." The right to life (if it applies) protects the deer from being killed - the motive or capacity to reason of the cougar is irrelevant.

 

[OneEye]

Good syllogism, but I would like to question, do animals really have morals?

Thank you for your compliment, and a very good clarifying question. As it turns out that this is not really an important question in this discussion - as several people have already pointed out. The question of morality is obviously one for humans (and our developing thesis shows that it is only for humans, since humans are unique in their moral conception and responsibility here). So, it really doesn't matter whether animals have morals or not - the question remains the same.

Nowadays, people say that we shouldn't eat meat because of the sanctity of the life of all living organisms. Aren't carrots living too? To take this argument to a reductio ad absurdum, if one believes this, then they should not wash their hands using antibacterial soap, because they will be slaughtering millions of bacteria while doing so.

And even vegetarians ingest billions of microorganisms - at least some of the Animalia - a day. Some Tibetan Buddhist monks, by the way, apologize to the bacteria they are washing off as they take their baths.

Humans are not just animals. I understand what you were trying to get at, but the main difference here is that we have the ability to reason, animals run purely on instinct. Moving away from that, I agree that it is INSTINCTUAL for carniverous animals to eat meat, and since the human instinct (for lack of a better word) tells us that we are omniverous, there should be nothing wrong with eating meat.

I agree with much of what you say, but if we get much farther along, we will see that trying to explain a moral difference through natural characteristics does not work. Intelligence, self-awareness, other-awareness neither necessitate nor engender morality.

 

[OneEye]

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
   -------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

All right. Here is where we stand so far:

Everyone finds the three-point syllogism to be cogent (i.e. the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses). Critiques of the syllogism come from people who (a) don't like the conclusion, and (b) intend to impeach one of the two premisses.

One group (learningphysics) says, "It it not moral for an animal to kill another animal." This would have to be called the extreme position in this discussion. Though the proponents of the position aim to be consistent, they are also engaging in a worse fallacy. For the time being, I wish to lay aside this view, and deal with the less extreme group.

The other group (physicsisphirst, Sangeeta) seem to take exception to the first proposition, but do so by dividing man from the other animals as being the only creature with the awareness and moral responsibility to choose not to kill and eat other animals. So, they are actually attacking the second premiss - which is as expected, and as it should be.

My thesis all along has been, "Man cannot be classed with other animals, since man has a unique moral responsibility." Everyone here is saying this (but will soon abruptly change course). So, everyone who has commented would like to somehow change the agument to conclude, "It is moral for an animal to eat meat if it is moral for that sort of animal to eat meat" - which really is a tautology.

Most animal rights apologetics begin by saying, "There is no fundamental, qualitative difference between man and the other animals - it is all just a matter of degrees - so our moral responsibility to our fellow animal is essentially the same as it is to our fellow man." Now, however, we see that everyone here agrees that there is at least one qualitative difference between man and the other animals: Moral responsibility toward other animals (and awareness of that moral responsibility).

Undoubtedly, there will be some thrashing over the above. But, for those who want to move on to the next step, here is a statement which I would like members to publicly reflect on:

Because humans have a moral faculty unique within the animal kingdom, they have a unique moral authority over the animal kingdom.

 

[learningphysics]

Most animal rights apologetics begin by saying, "There is no fundamental, qualitative difference between man and the other animals - it is all just a matter of degrees - so our moral responsibility to our fellow animal is essentially the same as it is to our fellow man."

Are you sure animal rights apologetics are making the above statement? I've heard them talk about how animals and humans have the same rights... It seems like their argument is that there is no fundamental difference with regards to "natural rights". Within this context humans and animals are seen as the same. But I haven't heard them say that there is no fundamental difference at all. Wouldn't "There is no fundamental, qualitative difference between the natural rights of man and the other animals" be more representative of the AR position.

Ok... I'll take fundamental difference to mean, something that's there in the humans but not in any other species "to any degree" (unlike intelligence). And it is your contention that moral responsibility is such a characteristic.

Now, however, we see that everyone here agrees that there is at least one qualitative difference between man and the other animals: Moral responsibility toward other animals (and awareness of that moral responsibility).

Yes, a lot of vegetarians and AR reps would agree that the above is a fundamental difference in humans. I'm not sure sure though.

I agree that these two statements are in contradiction:

1) There is no fundamental difference between humans and other animals.
2) Humans are the only species that have moral responsibility and awareness.

I'm inclined to say 1) is true (especially because of our similarity to the apes) and 2) is false.

1) does not seem important to the AR position. The following statement would be extremely important though:
"There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals".

 

[physicsisphirst]

Everyone finds the three-point syllogism to be cogent (i.e. the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses).

not everyone ;)

perhaps you missed my post #779. I've put it at the end (just in case you want to read it again). your 3 pointer can't be cogent unless you can create "an animal" that is human and non-human at the same time or at your convenience. LOL

The other group (physicsisphirst, Sangeeta) seem to take exception to the first proposition

wrong again!
i never took exception to your 1st proposition. in fact, it's a wonderful proposition - though perhaps not for your purposes.


in friendship,
prad


your 3 pt item is either incorrect or tautology. here's why:


1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).


let us consider exactly what "an animal" is.
it is either a) human or b) non-human.


so if it is the latter your syllogism reads:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

now you can probably see that 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. (hence incorrectness).


and if it is the former your sillygism becomes tautology and looks like this:

1. It is moral for a human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

which is like saying if you are redundant, then you are redundant.

 

[physicsisphirst]

(The China Study- the largest population study ever done (100,000 people participated), concluded that a plant based diet is the ideal diet for the human body- I can discuss this in further detail if you like).

sangeeta,

i'd like to hear more about the china study if you would care to elaborate.

great post too, btw.


finally, russ' point here "This isn't "right to kill" its "right to life." The right to life (if it applies) protects the deer from being killed" is actually quite an interesting one. I'm curious to see how it is answered by you and/or by learningphysics.

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

your 3 pointer can't be cogent unless you can create "an animal" that is human and non-human at the same time or at your convenience. LOL

I hate to do this, because I am assuming that you already know this, but:

An argument is cogent ("valid") if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses. The argument need not be true in order for it to be cogent. Likewise, the presmisses may be false, and yet the argument may still be cogent, so long as the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses. The syllogism which I presented is of the classic, elementary form known as "Barbara". It is a cogent form so long as, in order to deny the conclusion, one must also deny at least one of the premisses (i.e., passes the general test for cogency). You seem to be using the street definition of cogency, which simply means "true."

I read and analyzed your critique of the 3-point syllogism, and included your critique in my recent summary. (See below.)

wrong again!
i never took exception to your 1st proposition. in fact, it's a wonderful proposition - though perhaps not for your purposes.

Had you read the entire paragraph, you could have saved yourself some typing:

The other group (physicsisphirst, Sangeeta) seem to take exception to the first proposition, but do so by dividing man from the other animals as being the only creature with the awareness and moral responsibility to choose not to kill and eat other animals. So, they are actually attacking the second premiss - which is as expected, and as it should be. (emphasis added)

As a final note: You may not substantially change the premisses of an argument (as you did) and claim to be critiquing the original argument. When you do this, you are actually not critiquing the other person's position, but one of your own invention. When you critique an argument, you must deal with it as it is.

 

[OneEye]

Just wanted to put this latest proposition up front:

Because humans have a moral faculty unique within the animal kingdom, they have a unique moral authority over the animal kingdom.

I would love to hear some reflection on this from those involved.

 

[physicsisphirst]

An argument is cogent ("valid") if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premisses.

well that's fine, but in the non-human animal case:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

the consequent (3) doesn't follow at all from the antecedents (1 & 2), therefore cogency exists not. (i guess you could say it is 'incogent' rather than 'incorrect'.)
it's like saying if 2*2=4, then new york is a large city (both the antecedent and the consequent are true, but there is no connection between the two and the latter doesn't flow from the former, hence it is incogent).

(the second situation ie human animal, resulting from your creation is of course true, but not particularly helpful.)

So, they are actually attacking the second premiss -

no one is attacking the second premise either. i like both your premises!
sangeeta liked it too! she wrote (#780):

I most certainly agree with the 2nd premise. Humans are animals!

you keep attributing statements "of your own invention" to movements and people regardless of whether they say it or not.

(btw, what this second premise "humans are animals" means is that humans belong to the set of animals. it doesn't mean that a human is a cat, platypus or any other non-human creature outside of the subset humans anymore than a cat is a platypus. this is really easy to see if you draw some venn diagrams.)

You may not substantially change the premisses of an argument (as you did) and claim to be critiquing the original argument.

i didn't change your premise at all. i merely clarified what "an animal" could possibly be. since it could be human or non-human, it results in tautology or incogency respectively as already shown. (of course, it could be cats and non-cats or fleas, cats and non-fleas, non-cats, but those wouldn't have anything to do with what we are talking about since the focus is on humans, right?)


in any case, if there are no more syllogisms forthcoming, i will direct my energies elsewhere.

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

well that's fine, but in the non-human animal case:

1. It is moral for a non-human animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

the consequent (3) doesn't follow at all from the antecedents (1 & 2), therefore cogency exists not. (i guess you could say it is 'incogent' rather than 'incorrect'.)

Pardon me for seeming repetitious, but it seems that I may need to restate this: An argument is valid, cogent, if the conclusion can only be denied by denying one or more of the premisses. This is the case in the syllogism which I tabled: You cannot deny (3) without denying either (1) or (2). Thus, the argument is cogent (but might still be incorrect - especially, e.g., if one or more of the premisses is incorrect).

Your treatment of the syllogism does not disprove the syllogism. Rather, it supports it. The fact that you can extract two cases, one invalid and another a tautology, proves the cogency of the argument. That is characteristic of a well-formed Barabara syllogism, and characteristic of any good deduction.

A parallel version of your treatment would be:

1. Chimpanzees are omnivorous.
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
   ----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.

Following your approach, we divide out premiss (2) into "chimpanzess which are bonobos" and "chimpanzess which are not bonobos". Thus, we now have two syllogisms:

1. Chimpanzees which are not bonobos are omnivorous.
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
   ----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.

(INVALID)​

1. Chimpanzees which are bonobos are omnivorous.
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
   ----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.

(TAUTOLOGY - COGENT)​

Try your treatment on the classic:

1. Humans are mortal.
2. Socrates is human.
   ----------------------------------------------------
3. Socrates is mortal.

You will see that you get the same results.

So, the structure of my syllogism sound, even if you believe that the conclusion is false. This ought to drive us to question the premisses - which is what you actually seemed to intend, under the cover of an apparent critique of the cogency of the argument. By dividing the first premiss into "human animals" and "non-human animals", you seemed to want to differentiate between kinds of animal. I find this an agreeable step, especially when we say, "Humans are morally distinct from animals." (Another proposition with which, I think, almost all of us agree.)

it's like saying if 2*2=4, then new york is a large city (both the antecedent and the consequent are true, but there is no connection between the two and the latter doesn't flow from the former, hence it is incogent).

No, the two are dissimilar, because in my syllogism, to deny either premiss invalidates the conclusion, and to deny the conclusion requires denying one or both of the premisses (the test for syllogistic validity). In your construct (above), the precedent may be denied without affecting the antecedent, and vice versa.

I hope this clears the matter up. Let me know if I have not explained this effectively; I understand how easy it is to be vague under the guise of clarity, even when dealing with something as rigorous as syllogistic logic.

you keep attributing statements "of your own invention" to movements and people regardless of whether they say it or not.

I agree that I am coining these statements, but I also contend that they are characteristic thought for the animal rights/ethical vegetarian view. If they are not, I welcome your correction.

Further, as far as I can see, you are saying that you agree with my two premisses, but you then make the complaint that I am (inappropriately) attributing the statements to the animal rights/ethical vegetarian view. If you agree with what I am saying (in premisses 1 and 2), then you have no grounds to make such a complaint.

(btw, what this second premise "humans are animals" means is that humans belong to the set of animals. it doesn't mean that a human is a cat, platypus or any other non-human creature outside of the subset humans anymore than a cat is a platypus. this is really easy to see if you draw some venn diagrams.)

Which is completely consistent with what I am saying.

in any case, if there are no more syllogisms forthcoming, i will direct my energies elsewhere.

If you would like to be honorably released from this discussion, you certainly have my leave. I hope that the little bit of discussion we have had has been profitable to you, and I wish you well.

P.S. To quote Pascal - "Pardon the length of this message. I lacked the time to make it shorter."

 

[physicsisphirst]

An argument is valid, cogent, if the conclusion can only be denied by denying one or more of the premisses. This is the case in the syllogism which I tabled: You cannot deny (3) without denying either (1) or (2). Thus, the argument is cogent (but might still be incorrect - especially, e.g., if one or more of the premisses is incorrect).

i am not denying (3). i am just saying that it doesn't follow from (1) and (2).

let's look at what you wrote here:


1. Chimpanzees are omnivorous.
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.


there is nothing wrong with this and 3. follows from 1. and 2.
here chimpanzees means the set of all chimpanzees.

now look at this:

1. a Chimpanzee is omnivorous. [the equivalent of "an animal"]
2. Bonobos are chimpanzees.
----------------------------------------------------
3. Bonobos are omnivorous.

now 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. even though 3. might be true.


or look similarly

1. a baby is cute
2. dino is a baby
-----------------------
3. dino is cute

there is no cogency.


however, if we change it to

1. babies are cute
2. dino is a baby
-----------------------
3. dino is cute

this is perfectly cogent regardless of whether it is true or not.


so let's relate it back to what you wrote:

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).


just what do you mean by "an animal"?
do you mean "all animals" as in "the set of all animals"?
or do you mean just a particular animal as in "a chimpanzee" or "a baby"?

if you mean the latter, there is no cogency as shown in the above examples. please tell me exactly what you mean by "an animal".

So, the structure of my syllogism sound, even if you believe that the conclusion is false.

i am not arguing your conclusion here as you seem to think. i am just saying that 3. doesn't follow from 1. and 2. depending on what you mean by "an animal". please tell me exactly what you mean by "an animal".

I hope this clears the matter up. Let me know if I have not explained this effectively; I understand how easy it is to be vague under the guise of clarity, even when dealing with something as rigorous as syllogistic logic.

i appreciate your efforts and am willing work to achieve a mutual understanding.

I agree that I am coining these statements, but I also contend that they are characteristic thought for the animal rights/ethical vegetarian view. If they are not, I welcome your correction.

when stated differently (not the way you are doing it), they can be considered to be correct for ethical vegetarians, but not necessarily for animal rights which is considerably more varied. i'd be happy to elaborate if you want me to, once we get the syllogism stuff out of the way.

If you agree with what I am saying (in premisses 1 and 2), then you have no grounds to make such a complaint.

why not? I'm fine with 2., but i only said about 1. that it's a wonderful proposition - though perhaps not for your purposes.
i really can't agree or disagree with it, unless you tell me exactly what you mean by "an animal".

If you would like to be honorably released from this discussion, you certainly have my leave.

no. i find you to be a pleasant and polite individual. you make the effort to respond to issues with detail (admittedly you had to be 'reminded' occasionally). i don't think you do it correctly, but you no doubt feel the same about me. i am happy to continue this with you and do find it of benefit.

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

just what do you mean by "an animal"?

I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".

Hope this helps clear the question up. I understand that you would not want to use the term "any animal," since this would work against your animal rights position. My assessment, which is growing firmer and firmer, is that you consider humanity unique within the kingdom Animalia in being the only animal which has a moral proscription against eating meat - which, in my opinion (and as I hope to show later) effectively separates man from the kingdom Animalia in every way except the least-important (i.e., the physical connection).

(There is really nothing remarkable about my argument, by the way. It's about as trivial a case of modus ponens as you could construe.)

Given my clarification, I restate:

1. It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
2. Humans are members of Animalia.
   -------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).

How do you reply to this?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Have people been interpreting the poll as asking "Is it morally justifiable to eat meat?" The poll actually asks if humans "should" eat meat. What arguements are given to say we should eat meat; futhermore, what arguements are given that can't be refuted? Idealistically eating eggs or milk might be beneficial for health, but eating meat?

 

[physicsisphirst]

I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".
...
I understand that you would not want to use the term "any animal,"
...

1. It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
2. Humans are members of Animalia.
   -------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).

How do you reply to this?

any member of Animalia = any animal (so it really doesn't matter which you use does it?)

so if you maintain
It is moral for any member of Animalia to kill and/or eat other members of Animalia (if they desire to).
what's there to refute as far as the consequent following from the antecedent?

in fact, here is something else perfect as far as logic goes:

1. all integers are positive.
2. all numbers less than zero are integers.
----------------------------------------------------------
3. all numbers less than zero are positive.



so depending on how you set your premise you can have the consequent irrefutably follow from the antecedent regardless of reality. however, that's not really what is important.

here is the deception that you created (unintentionally, I'm sure):

you wrote:
It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).

an ethical veg would probably not dispute this - therefore, you can possibly attribute this to them.
(do you really think you can attribute your presently modified 1. to them?
that would be like my attributing the "all integers are positive" to the mathematical community LOL)

however, your meaning here is not "an animal", but "any member of Animalia" ie "any animal" as you have now admitted above: I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".
you see it doesn't just cause confusion - it becomes something totally different.

in other words, under the guise of "an animal", you try to get an ethical veg to agree to "any animal". (you did something similar trying to show a contradiction in your 4 pointer: see posts #765, #769 - despite dissident dan's wish to the contrary LOL - after which i guess we should go reread his post #764 LOL).

you cannot use an element of a set, when you really mean any (or all) elements of a set.

very simply by saying "an animal" when you really mean "any animal" is not just 'tampering with the premise' (something you seemed to think i was doing) - it is misleading your readers. this is why i have kept asking for clarification over several posts (and showed you why in its earlier form it is either tautology or 'incogent' - see post #779).

again, i don't think you did this to deliberately mislead. the two look so similar - and the logic appears so very attractive too!
however, the fruit can look tasty, but be rotten on the inside.

in friendship,
prad

 

[Dissident Dan]

Quick question:

How many people think that the same criteria apply for actors and recipients of actions in moral considerations? In other words, do you use the same criteria to determine whether to apply ideas of ethics/morality to an individual's actions as you do to determine whether an individual should be treated ethically/morally?

 

[learningphysics]

Quick question:

How many people think that the same criteria apply for actors and recipients of actions in moral considerations? In other words, do you use the same criteria to determine whether to apply ideas of ethics/morality to an individual's actions as you do to determine whether an individual should be treated ethically/morally?

Excellent question Dan! I certainly do not think the same criteria applies. Which is why it seems like whether are not humans are unique with regards to their capacity for moral awareness, is really NOT an animal rights issue.

 

[OneEye]

Have people been interpreting the poll as asking "Is it morally justifiable to eat meat?" The poll actually asks if humans "should" eat meat. What arguements are given to say we should eat meat; futhermore, what arguements are given that can't be refuted? Idealistically eating eggs or milk might be beneficial for health, but eating meat?

I would say that the morality of eating meat is really the question at issue, because the animal rights position is an ethical/moral position. I suppose that here is such a thing as a vegetarian by preference, though such a person would probably not be asking whether others should eat meat. There is also the religious vegetarian - but this is an ethical vegetarian position. Theoretically, one might choose vegetarianism for health reasons (a la C. W. Post and F. B. Kellogg - and Seventh Day Adventists in general), but my experience is that the "vegetarianism is healthier" view is almost always a Trojan horse for ethical vegetarianism.

Further, "should" is a value-judgment term, and hence the subject of moral/ethical evaluation.

Further still, no-one is asking "Why should we eat meat?" (A simple answer to which might be, humans are omnivores, and have a long tradition of eating meat.) What is actually being dealt with in this topic is "Why should we not eat meat?" In order to answer this, a variety of ethical/moral arguments have been served up, peppered liberally with health arguments.

My aim is not to get anyone to eat meat. Nor is it particularly to defend the practice of eating meat (which I do eat, by the way.) My aim, ultimately, is to show that there is no naturalistic argument for ethical vegetarianism. (As I have said before, I do believe that humans have a moral obligation regarding their use of creation. But this is a religious view.)

I hope that this explains the current state of the debate.

 

[OneEye]

in fact, here is something else perfect as far as logic goes:

1. all integers are positive.
2. all numbers less than zero are integers.
----------------------------------------------------------
3. all numbers less than zero are positive.

Quite right. This is what I have been saying all along. Cogency is a matter of the formal validity of the argument, not of its truth. Your syllogism is valid (cogent) because it is properly constructed. Basic logic teaches us that an argument can be cogent and false. Your syllogism demonstrates this: It is cogent, but false (because premiss 1 is false).

here is the deception that you created (unintentionally, I'm sure):

you wrote:
It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).

however, your meaning here is not "an animal", but "any member of Animalia" ie "any animal" as you have now admitted above: I apologize if the use of the indefinite article ("an") caused confusion. By "an animal," I meant "a member of the kingdom Animalia".
you see it doesn't just cause confusion - it becomes something totally different.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that anyone would interpret "an animal" to mean "a specific animal". I have never seen that meaning applied to the use of the indefinite article in this sort of context. I am astonished to think that anyone would find the language ambiguous. But, if you found my choice of terms confusing, then I am sorry for the confusion. I'll note that one down for future reference.

 

[learningphysics]

OneEye, did you see my response #785? Waiting for your response. Thanks.

 

[OneEye]

Quick question:

How many people think that the same criteria apply for actors and recipients of actions in moral considerations? In other words, do you use the same criteria to determine whether to apply ideas of ethics/morality to an individual's actions as you do to determine whether an individual should be treated ethically/morally?

(If I take your meaning correctly:)

This is, indeed, a very good point - and one which must be factored into any such discussion: One is obliged to act morally regardless whether the object of the action is a moral agent or not. I am not suggesting that one may treat an amoral object in immoral ways.

The question comes down to defining moral actions, specifically (in this case) with regard to human relations with other creatures.

However, the nature of the other ("object") creature does, indeed, impact this equation. For instance, a human is morally at liberty to act toward the dysentery amoeba or the tapeworm in ways which we might consider immoral when directed at, say, another human. And we all agree that humans may act toward nonsentient lives (e.g., plants) in ways which would be wrong when applied to humans. So, it is apparent that the nature of the object creature has a great impact on what we define as moral behavior when humans relate with non-human creatures.

The real struggle will come when we try to determine whose moral rules to apply in our interspecies relations - and why. It is well-observed that many animals eat other animals, and most of us agree that this is "their business". So in the broadest sense, nature offers us no direct guidance as to whether one animal eating another is moral or not - and the more one blurs the line between humanity and other animals, the less clear it becomes as to why man should abstain from an altogether natural practice.

One can say, (as you imply,) "Man should not treat animals according to any value system other than the human value system" - but problems arise when one considers this view (it seems somewhat arbitrary and "speciesist"), and even if we accept this statement uncritically, it still remains to be seen what is the "human value system" when it comes to human treatment of animals. It is apparent that humans have eaten animals for time immemorial. Why the human value system which prohibits the killing and eating of members of other species is to be preferred over the human value system which embraces an omnivorous or carnivorous diet remains to be seen.

So yes, this is an excellent clarifier. But unfortunately, it does not answer the question - nor does it take us as far down the road to answering it as it might first seem to.

 

[OneEye]

OneEye, did you see my response #785? Waiting for your response. Thanks.

Very sorry. I didn't realize that it was on my plate! This, I assume, is what you want me to respond to:

"There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals".

I suppose that this statement is one of the clearest demonstrators of the contradiction I have been touting:

1. "There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals."
2. Omnivorous and carnivorous animals have the natural right to eat other animals.
3. Humans are omnivorous animals.
   ------------------------------------------------------------
4. Humans have the natural right to eat other animals.

I realize that you were trying to evade the man/animal dichotomy issue by this position statement. However, it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.

I hope that I dealt with your position thoroughly.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Never in my wildest dreams ...

just as long you and i have reached a mutual understanding about certain things, I'm happy to move on ;)

the "vegetarianism is healthier" view is almost always a Trojan horse for ethical vegetarianism.

this is a silly notion sometimes held by both anti-veg and anti-AR folk. the 'healthier than thou' veggies are by no means necessarily 'holier than thou' - they may wear leather and fur, may advocate animal research and circuses, and may detest AR as much as anyone. they are usually pretty right on about the benefits of veg though because they often research it quite extensively. interestingly enough, it should not be assumed that all AR activists are veg either, cause they ain't!

i think it's important to recognize that there are a lot of different people out there with different degrees of tolerances doing different things.

it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.

it doesn't disarm the AR position at all - you are assuming that humans are the only ones capable of niceness on the planet. you also assume that eating meat is human's natural and traditional diet.

in friendship,
prad

 

[learningphysics]

Very sorry. I didn't realize that it was on my plate! This, I assume, is what you want me to respond to:

I suppose that this statement is one of the clearest demonstrators of the contradiction I have been touting:

1. "There is no fundamental difference between the natural rights of humans and other animals."
2. Omnivorous and carnivorous animals have the natural right to eat other animals.
3. Humans are omnivorous animals.
   ------------------------------------------------------------
4. Humans have the natural right to eat other animals.

I realize that you were trying to evade the man/animal dichotomy issue by this position statement. However, it turns out that avoiding the man/animal dichotomy completely disarms the animal rights position. Man's fundamental obligation to abstain from his natural and traditional diet must be based in the man/animal dichotomy.

I hope that I dealt with your position thoroughly.

Not really. Now we have a problem the definition of natural rights... By natural rights, I'm simply referring to the right to happiness, the right to be free of pain, the right to survive... I'd never call the right to eat meat a natural right... for humans or animals. And neither would any animals rights rep...

"Humans can survive without meat therefore, they don't have the right to eat meat."

"Some animals can't survive without meat, therefore they have the right to eat meat."

The above two statements would be more in line with the animal rights position.

Did you see Dissident Dan's post? Natural rights are the most basic of rights and stem from foundations of ethics... ie:to be free of pain, to be happy etc...

 

[Bin Qasim]

People who want to be vegans are fine with me. I don't bother them, and I expect them not to bother me.

same thing... I won't bother them too... btw I am non veg