Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by onecae on July 6, 2012 at 7:15pm

"Loading the dice"  please explain more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on July 6, 2012 at 11:22pm

It seems to imply some underlying covert cause for things which, after all, are merely coincidental. The hand of God? Fate?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by onecae on July 7, 2012 at 8:54am

I load the dice. I cause things. QED

Permalink Reply by Unseen on July 7, 2012 at 11:23am

Sorry, not into big saggy breast. I keep thinking about all that sweaty skin on skin between the breast and the chest.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Cox on July 29, 2012 at 9:16pm

I remember a conversation with friends of mine in HS. One suggested that the reason humans get unhappy , depressed, and angry so easily is that we have too many brain cells. We have excess processing capacity,I and we are a little thin on knowing 'when' to apply it. It is almost always 'ON'. A bad piece of code that is in a closed loop that is always looking for new inputs, crapy outputs.    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on July 31, 2012 at 3:30pm

@Kris Feenstra

I'm starting afresh due to getting tired of trying to find where to post to keep our posts in consecutive order.

We should eat less meat, but giving it up entirely is unnatural. Again, there is no particular value to what is natural here. It should be sufficient simply to assess what a healthy diet for a human is. That will certainly be affected by what is natural, but it is unnecessary to limit the scope of our thinking or practices to such a consideration.

It's obviously possible to live without meat in one's diet, but to do so requires some standing on one's head in terms of calculating how much of this and that vegetable matter you need to substitute for meat protein and the other sub-nutrients that come along with meat. However, eating a diet with both meat and vegetable matter generally takes the calculus out of it. The body knows how to get what it needs out of such a diet effortlessly. That said, it's true our diet is generally out of balance in many ways. But taking meat out makes things unnecessarily difficult.

While it would seem lions can't manufacture artificial food due to not having hands...

I don't know.  I think taurine is what they require.  Humans can synthesize taurine (without eating meat); lions cannot.  It's eat meat or die for them.  In your scenario, I would expect lions to give ethical consideration to the meat they do eat if they had the ability to do so, but that's not strictly a carnivore's dilemma.  Anyone who eats food should give such considerations when they can afford to do so.  It's just that with vegetarians they have to consider ecological impacts (which do also impact other animal species) rather than the screaming of murdered carrots.

If it's meat or die for them, and they are natural born killers on the one hand but beings with a conscience on the other, then don't they have a duty to starve to death?

All predators scavenge. Scavenging is a natural supplement to predation.

I am simply saying that we aren't other species.  There are all sorts of variations in food acquisition when it comes to animals.  When it comes to food, the behaviour of modern h. sapiens sapiens is demonstrably unique.

Everything is unique in some respect. Thinking we're even more special than that is tantamount to agreeing that God gave us nature to manage.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on July 31, 2012 at 4:23pm

But taking meat out makes things unnecessarily difficult.

That argument only works when weighed against harm caused, in which case, I don't know which way the scale tips.  I imagine, when it comes to food resources in general, regional variations would greatly impact both difficulty and harm for any individual or specific culture.  It seems like that ground has already been explored in this thread, so I'm not going to rehash it.

If it's meat or die for them, and they are natural born killers on the one hand but beings with a conscience on the other, then don't they have a duty to starve to death?

Depends on whom you ask, I suppose.  I don't fault self-preservation though I do have stipulations on that.  Chiefly, it's okay to set the world on fire in order to survive, but only if you don't mind living in a world on fire. 

Thinking we're even more special than that is tantamount to agreeing that God gave us nature to manage.

Who said more special?  God or no god: it's irrelevant.  It's down to tautologies: we are what we are; we have the capabilities that we have; we have the limitations that we have.  In this case, I can give consideration to the welfare of other animals.  Humans can act custodial toward other species or even ecosystems.  There is no could have/ should have/ would have.  There is just ability and actuality.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Kelly on July 31, 2012 at 4:59pm

The issue I am having is that using a non-speciesist definition of natural, we have no cross reference other than humans for how a developed intelligent species naturally acts.

I don't think the appeal to nature works, because as I have said, then anything a person does in that case is natural.  It is only different then because we are the only species at this level of development, so the only species doing what is natural for that level.

We can't say what it would be like for a carnivorous species in such a circumstance, however I would assume they would use a lot of confirmation bias to defend why they ought to eat meat and it be moral because humans aren't even carnivores and they still practice justifying behavior of that sort.  But that is just a guess.

Also, it seems that this argument for why one ought not be a vegetarian is  being leaned to rest on the idea that it is okay to eat the meat of something that is not the same species than we are if it is too inconvenient to not.  The problem with this, is that it is then also okay to eat the meat of persons of a different species, because the argument rests too strongly on the practical aspect, and doesn't provide room for a moral one, as the argument rests so far.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on July 31, 2012 at 6:02pm

One thing for sure, what makes us human is our ability to discuss scientifically what is and must be on the one hand, but on the other hand our ability to discuss philosophically what can be and should be.

In this sense, I don't see yet how science can define what should be, except in terms of how it can obviously enhance what humans require for survival and health.

So I see two major, distinct abilities that make humans unique: 1) to invent and use science to describe and enhance our natural existence; 2) to wisely choose how to use resources (and science) above and beyond our own, personal survival requirements. (I think Clay Shirky has written about the latter as "Cognitive Surplus"?)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on July 31, 2012 at 7:30pm

In everyday life, we seem to imply that it's our frailties and flaws that make us human: "I'm only human," "to err is human," etc. When do we say "To be great is human" or "To be kind is human"? Sure, some people are great or kind, but they don't seem to define us in any way we actually talk about, do they?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by maruli marulaki on August 15, 2012 at 3:42pm

The human cognition is unique, because it enables only humans to experience so much individuality, that they can prefer to refuse to breed.  Human cognition allows us to consider breeding as irrational harm on women's bodies.  Animals breed by instinct.   No animals are capable to remain consciously childfree.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Suzanne Olson-Hyde on August 16, 2012 at 6:14am

@ maruli - Human cognition allows us to consider breeding as irrational harm on women's bodies.

Sorry, maruli, I feel that is what a woman's body is meant to do, that is what a woman's instinct is to do, and that is what my brain wanted - to have children, as opposed to 'breeding'. I didn't consider it breeding, and I couldn't imagine my life without them. Certainly there are many women choosing not to have children, for whatever reason, career, lifestyle, education, more power to them, but for me, wasn't talked into it, it wasn't expected of me, and with women's freedom to choose, the miraculous pill, freedom to have sex whenever, and whenever I deem to choose it.  When I had my three children, it was like shelling peas, so easy, no trauma, no damage to body, and the joy of having children, unbelievable, and actually quite surprising to me. When a woman 'chooses' to have a child, and by chance, she can't for whatever reason - she can actually become unbalanced.  I have personally see this happen, another friend who had a miscarriage, traumatised and went into a deep depression.

I even planned to have my children's birthday in the one month, so I would only have to have one birthday party.

I am talking about families where religion doesn't rear it's ugly head, as mormons and their walking incubators, or catholics, before the pill was invented, or muslims where the female is a chattel. In western society, it is, or should be choice. People who get pregnant with so much contraception around, have got to be thick, no excuses. For a female to have control, and making the choices she wants to make, and everybody else can go take a hike. Women making the choice, whatever that choice is - that is what it is all about.

I am also pro-abortion, shouldn't get pregnant, but once again, leave it up to the woman to make her choice if she can feed, cloth, house and educate that child. Every child must be wanted - what is the point, otherwise.

That is the difference between humans and animals - we have contraception, and it is getting better all the time - thanks to Science.

By the by - sex is certainly instinctive too - yahoooo!!!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• Next ›
• Page