Comment by joabaldwin on May 30, 2010 at 2:21am

I feel similar in some ways. I recommend you look into "I Am a Strange Loop" by Douglas Hofstadter, great read that tries to deal in the "value" of "souls" of different creatures in a quantitative way (while acknowledging that there's no such things to begin with). He does a great job at being objective about it.

Comment by Atheist Exile on May 30, 2010 at 3:11am

So, James, what's your view on abortion, the death penalty, killing (including wars) in self-defense, leather shoes, eating meat and fish, crop-dusting, laboratory animals that suffer and die for science, and euthanasia?

Nature is red in tooth and claw. The value of life is not absolute. Your sentiment is laudable: it's precisely because the value of life is not absolute that we need to value it as much as possible. I, for one, have no issue with terminating pests or war for a just cause or (when it's essential) sacrificing animals for medical research.

I don't believe in the relativist stance that all lifeforms are equal. I place a higher value on human life than on other lifeforms. With almost 7 billion mouths to feed, we can't afford NOT to raise livestock and farm fish.

Our egalitarian impulses are noble for their desire to include and embrace but they're not realistic in a world where nature insists on death for survival.

Comment by Galen on May 30, 2010 at 4:34am

What he said ^

Comment by Jānis Ķimsis on May 30, 2010 at 8:18am

Exile, I don't think James is advocating the Jainist approach, just saying that if it can be avoided, you shoudn't kill. I agree, seeing as wars can be unavoidable. I understand the neccesity for experimenting on animals for medical purposes too, as long as it isn't some stupid shit like lipstick.

Regarding the preachers words, it seems strange that he equates killing a worm with torturing a human for eternity. Even if we are to god what worms are to us, I think there is a huge difference between killing something and torturing it forever.

Comment by Atheist Exile on May 30, 2010 at 11:56am

Hi Jānis Ķimsis,

Yes, you're right. I was addressing only one aspect of James' piece: namely the sentiment expressed by the title of his post. While I see nothing unnatural about killing for food, research or principle, there's also nothing wrong with the kind of sensitivity to life that James expresses.

The reason I asked for James' views on the value of life in the specific scenarios listed is because his rationale, if taken further than stated, could advocate or endorse the vegan principle of species equality . . . something I disagree with. Because the value of life is not an absolute, survival trumps species equality.

And lastly, James' comparison of man/worm and God/man is an apt one and something to think seriously about. I should have acknowledged this to begin with. As a fellow atheist, it simply wasn't a very controversial idea to me and, thus, was not as provocative as the title of his piece.

Comment by Mario Rodgers on May 30, 2010 at 12:21pm

If we are lowly worms to God, how are supposed to believe that he's also a personal God who knows us and loves us?

Comment by Craig Nomazlab on May 30, 2010 at 12:42pm

I feel the same way. I'm contemplating vegetarianism as well, but I haven't told my parents my opinion so at the moment, I'm just avoiding meat whenever possible. But yes, I would kill if absolutely necessary. I would kill to save more lives or if in self defence.

Comment by James on May 30, 2010 at 10:16pm

My stance is pretty much as Jānis stated. I understand that taking a stance of all life being 100% equal can be taken way to far. In fact, plants are alive as well in their own way. So ultimately, something has to die in order for any animated life to survive. I just think that killing should be avoided if possible. Re-reading my blog, I can see that it may suggest a slippery slope. In short, there some areas where the death of animals seems more necessary, and others where it seems plain pointless. For food, pest infestation, immediate protection, etc are situations where I would deem it acceptable. While I enjoy eating a good burger, I try to reconcile the fact that the particular cow was bread for that end. Although, I do think they should be treated as humanely as possible, throughout. It's something that doesn't seem to fit with my thoughts above. But sadly there is no way to make everyone and everything happy. Obviously, there will be differing definitions for just about everyone. Where I grew up, there were those that considered it 'sport' for the guys in there big trucks to try and hit animals that crossed their path on the road. Where I would try and miss them, they would deliberately hit them, and then brag about it at school... Hunting is another thing I never got in to. If you hunt and then take the deer home and eat it, I have no problems with that. But many kids I knew would just go out to shoot stuff. Sometimes just leaving it dead in the woods, and other times keeping only the rack for the wall and trashing the rest. I've never seen the sport in a game that is stacked in the one direction.

People I knew would laugh about making road kill. Meanwhile I would feel bad for running over a squirrel. This was more of the root of what I was trying to convey. I realize that all animals are alive through the same means as we are. Our lives, just as fragile as theirs. I feel that this kinship allows me to relate with their plight to some degree. To me, the preachers words seemed to suggest that we should have no remorse from killing a creature that is 'bellow' humanity. THAT is where I can not agree. Death is a regrettable, yet necessary part of life. If I were to consider 'lower animals' as unworthy of compassion, then what reason would I have to donate money to the ASPCA or Defenders of Wildlife? None. This compassion for our cousins is nothing unique to Atheists, as I know Theists that also share this view, contrary to the fact that they are told that they are more special.

Abortion: I'm OK with it under certain considerations. If you simply want to use it as birth control, then no. But if you took the measures to not get pregnant, (were raped) or the birth would kill the mother and child, then I feel it's acceptable. But not late term. Accidental pregnancies need to decide early on if they are going to have a child or not. It's something that one should reflect on and decide for themselves, but decide as soon as possible. At that early stage, it's not a person yet. In a perfect world, I would hope people would be able to make that decision as soon as (or shortly after) discovering they were pregnant.

Death penalty: I can't give a blanket answer for this one. I feel that it depends on the degree of what the individual was found guilty of. For some crimes, life in prison is just. In extremely heinous circumstances, death could be justified. Admittedly, I'm still fuzzy on this one. When I was a believer I thought 'eye for an eye' was the right way to go about things. But as my views have changed, so have my opinions on other issues softened or changed. Once, death for any murder seemed right. I was disillusioned that no one innocent was ever sent to jail. However I'm not so naive now, or as quick to prescribe death as a form of justice.

War: Obviously it can be an unavoidable fact. If it's kill or be killed, I feel the choice is pretty obvious.

Comment by Atheist Exile on May 31, 2010 at 1:17am

Hey James,

Thanks for the full reply. It cleared up my questions.

There are a few people who are vegans . . . not vegetarians . . . but vegans. Strict vegetarians won't eat animals but vegans go further by also not consuming anything made from animals (meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, dairy products, honey, fur, leather, wool, silk, gelatin, lanolin, rennet, whey, casein, beeswax, isinglass, and shellac). I think that's taking things too far! Some of these things don't even involve killing: dairy products, honey, wool. I wonder how many vegans use medicine developed by testing with animals . . .

From your original post, I got the impression you might subscribe to veganism or even Hinduism or Jainism. If so, we could have had a lively discussion. I don't view veganism as "bad" so much . . . it's more like I think it's unworkable on a global scale. Vegans have to be very careful about their diet in order to meet their nutritional needs. Add to this the burgeoning human population and veganism becomes a luxury for those who can afford such a selective diet/lifestyle.

To be sure, far too many people view meat as a luxury. And far too many would feel privileged to have a down pillow or leather shoes. Vegans are a rare lot, thankfully, and you're not one of them. If you were, I would have had a "bone to pick" with you. :-)

Comment by Jānis Ķimsis on May 31, 2010 at 2:31am

It's better that people view meat as luxury than take it for granted.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page