Morality in the Animal Rights Debate with Sam Harris

[vincentfdr]

This guy is a genius.

[vincentfdr]

Sam is absolutely right. I would eat a child, baby, or a mentally impaired human because it just makes sense. We eat animals that have just as much or more conscience as the retarded or young children and we are have more to experience in life than them. So I do not see why we shouldn't eat them especially when I hear their flesh tastes similar to pig flesh. Also if not children or babies because of their "possible" ability to grow to our "level", at least we could eat the mentally impaired.

[OrganicKing]

LOL what is this wellbeing shit he keeps talking about? this is almost like pseudo science cult!

[MrBrutus101]

Animal Rights argument is an inconsistent logic. Why only extend moral significance to animals and exclude organisms that provide oxygen for us?

[AntiSpeciesistWorld]

@MrBrutus101 Because plants are not sentient and they don't feel pain and were not over-consuming plants, if we were then it would be an ethical issues since its effecting sentient beings who depend on oxygen but since were not it's not an issue and even if the whole world went vegetarian, we wouldn't need much more plants because even meat-eaters consume plants in anyways, the only difference would be there not consuming meat, there wouldn't be really any need to eat more plants.

[hatemysis]

if its ok to eat animals because they are basically dumber than we are, are we then allowed to eat the mentally handicapped? Clearly the answer is no. Justifying the act of eating meat based on rational faculties is simply ridiculous. I mistakenly thought that Sam Harriss was better than that. At least he displays some consistency when he includes possible beings that could be smarter than humans.

[InSearchOfAnExit]

@hatemysis yeah, i too thought he'd be smarter about it as well. i'm sure he'd have issue with the slavery and the eating of say autistic humans. i'd like to hear his response to that though. he's usually pretty consistent and well thought through most of what he believes; expressing this consistency when he includes possible beings that could be smarter than humans (even on the level of us to bacteria) but he simply says we shouldn't eat them but didn't say weather they could eat us.

[ZoldierrZzz]

@normalkuriboh Lol.

[Guywholovesbakon]

And the Lord said Rise up kill and eat...and dang it im not giving up meat.

[TWINKYBUTTFUCK1975]

@Guywholovesbakon I AGREE,I EAT DOGS,CATS.BIRDS,COWS,PIGS,PEOP­LE,UNBORN FETUSES,AND COCKROACHES!.......ANIMALS TASTES WAY BETTER THAN CUM,AND ANIMALS CAN'T TALK,THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS!!

[kheffah]

I've read Sam Harris's "The moral Landscape" and I think it's got some pretty powerful argument there. In fact, it drove me to read more and more into the philosophy of morality until I came up with a coherent, rather encompassing system. I tend to call it "The Scientific Moral System" and I wrote about it in my blog: kheffah(dot)blogspot(dot)com

[beaelliott]

By this criteria... Since a brain dead person or a child or someone in a coma don't have the qualitative characteristics of most of us... We ought to be able to harvest their organs. Bad logic. The truth is... Causing unnecessary harm to innocent others ought to be avoided whenever possible. Eating a plant based diet - does that to the extent that our own lives are not compromised --- But in fact made better through improved health, environment and sustainability.

[beaelliott]

Aside from causing unnecessary harm to innocent life (even if that life does not share our intelligence)-There's inescapable issues regarding what animal killing does to the humans who are tasked to kill.It perpetuates violence and threatens mental inner peace.Meat eating becomes unethical too when you consider humans that starve due to fattening animals on grains that could be used as human food. Also unethical considering the environment and human health. It's more than just consuming flesh.

[ZoldierrZzz]

I think Sam is trying to rationalize the irrational, I usually agree with him on atheism and religion but not here. He did say some good things though..

But the only question that matters is, is it moral to kill if it's not necessary? And the obvious answer is no. We don't need to kill animals for food, clothing or so called "fun"/hunting. Humans can live perfectly healthy on a vegan/vegetarian diet so there is no need to torture, kill and exploit our fellow earthlings for our own benefit.

[normalkuriboh]

@ZoldierrZzz Simply not true. Sorry dude, I wish that were the case.

[ZoldierrZzz]

@normalkuriboh

I'm not wrong.

[normalkuriboh]

@ZoldierrZzz Billions upon billions of things are made of animal bi-products, and it is a massive part of the economy and everyday life. You vastly oversimplified the contributions to society that animal products have. I mean sure they are alive, but they have no conscience or state of mind. They do feel pain, but not love. It is an interesting subject, although unnecessary because we DO need to kill them, and they are NOT our contemporaries. I have debated this subject in class for months.

[Valholm]

@normalkuriboh WOW, I disagree with ZoldierrZzz and his idealistic bullshit thinking, but your statements are even funnier. "They do feel pain, but not love." What does that has to do with anything, and why would that justify killing them? That's no decent argument, EVEN IF THAT WAS TRUE, which it's not. Let me remind you that some "highly-evolved animals", like parrots for example, are capable of suicide after losing their beloved.

Everything you have said is an idealistic joke wth

[InSearchOfAnExit]

and why do we need to kill them? we can live perfectly healthy lives without doing so which means we kill them for our own pleasure. that doesn't sound very moral to me. not our contemporaries?! f*^k off. what exactly qualifies for being our contemporary? you need to think about that.

[InSearchOfAnExit]

@normalkuriboh debated this in what class exactly? not zoology for sure.

no conscience or state of mind? utterly ridiculous. the more we learn about non human animals the more we are amazed at their complexities and sentient capacity. if your statements are the result of debates in your class ask for a new and more informed teacher.

and so what if animal products play a massive part of the economy. this was the same argument used to maintain the african slave trade.

[normalkuriboh]

@InSearchOfAnExit Okay, let's do 'state of mind'. No, animals have no state of mind. They cannot have it, either. We do discover the primitive instincts of solidarity and altruism, but that just affirms the fact that evolution has bred into us morality. You are obviously a moron, as you have not fully punctuated any of your sentences. I have researched both sides of this. The human brain is simply much more developed, and therein lies thought. Furthermore, there was an alternative to slavery.

[normalkuriboh]

@InSearchOfAnExit By the way, thanks for the intellectual dishonesty.

[eastariel]

The Bible mentions that animals were put on this Earth for mankind. Here's what that means to me.

Animals are vulnerable and weaker than people. We must take care of them. Serving their needs serves ours.

Our angel souls are designed to serve just as race horses are born to race. Our souls thrive when we serve those who are more vulnerable than us.

God serves us in that way. He takes care of us.

As children learn to parent by playing with dolls, our souls learn Godliness by caring for animals.

[v7chris]

Sam Harris: "This is not mere species-ism. (...) It's because

we show every sign of having a broader and deeper and richer experience than any other conscious creature we know about."

Really, Sam? Have you considered how your human perspective might impact those signs?

[emporernanner]

The happiness i get from bacon is greater than the suffering of the bacon machine. therefore bacon is moral. Bacteria do eat humans, therefore we should turn his hypothetical alien into bacon, it is the order of nature, that man consume.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 ... saying he enjoys the money rather than the torture itself. We would regard his actions as being morally reprehensible and would condemn him for carrying out those actions. Similarly, meat eaters enjoy the meat and not the torture that went into the production of that meat, but they are nevertheless acting immorally by financing and commissioning acts of cruelty. (Continued below)

[deanmullen10]

If u believe ur species deserves rights bt not others

1. U believe u & all members of ur species deserve max rights possible bt other species dnt

2. All life experiences emotions, yet if any sentient beings agree with statement 1 then u agree w/ their want for max rights even if they r nt ur species yet since u agree with them u contradict ur 1st belief

3. If u judge beings by their belief in statement 1 then u agree humans who disagree with statement 1 dnt deserve rights which is contradictive

[almostskater3210]

@deanmullen10

You can only have rights if you understand them. Animal rights are not "rights," but laws preventing PEOPLE from doing certain things. Emotion isn't what makes us unique; emotion is ancient.

[beaelliott]

If you're basing your criteria on a being's ability to suffer/feel joy-You renounce comatose people & to a degree-human infants as their awareness is limited as well.Of course putting human interests above nonhumans when there is conflict is understandable... But in the selection of a diet - It's not like we are killing beings that are a threat to us. Even a fly one could argue spreads "disease" - Or bacteria could kill us. Not the case of "self preservation" with killing cows/pigs/birds.

[lukebeevers93]

Harris is wrong. Why is richness of experience so important? Is a woman who has a really exciting, rich life more "important" than a couch potato who has a boring life? I think not. All sentient animals are equally morally considerable.

[TheOtherView]

@lukebeevers93

I agree I don't understand how he's developing this. This is where science has its limitations.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

We understand our own mental processes and have internal dialogue.That is what makes us unique. Most animals feel things more than understand them. A cow doesn't care if it has "rights" or not. If it is living in a shitty place, it doesnt "dream" about how the grass is greener on the other side. Speciesism does come into play; we wouldn't harm a person who had a botched lobotomy, even though they aren't conscious. Watch out for those faulty parallels though.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 So because cows can't care whether they have "rights", they don't have them? Babies don't care but they have them.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

But they will care when they grow up; that potential makes them different. But ya they don't really have rights the way I like to define them. A right for me is something guaranteed that you can actively do, something you can flex.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 So potential counts then. What about those unfortunate human beings who were conceived without the potential for caring about whether they have rights? Is it OK for us to eat and torture them because they have no "rights"?

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

That's exactly where I think speciesism comes into play. No matter how brain dead someone is (i.e. botched lobotomy) society will never except any kind of harm or the like towards them. I have discussed this with many people, and many believe one day it will be acceptable for those unfortunate people to be put to sleep (They don't gain anything personally from life [i.e. happiness]; they don't benefit society but only take from it), a touchy topic that I will not ever debate.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

....(read below) Watch out with using logical fallacies. No one is advocating torture, and in my opinion, it is wrong to torture animals, if by torture you mean intentional infliction of pain for non-beneficial purposes. To eat them, yes. We have evolved to eat meat. But each animal has to examined separately to determine whether or not we should eat them. I do not think because animals have no rights they should be eaten. I don't like blanket statements.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 How am I using logical fallacies? Yes people are advocating torture, meat is torture, dairy is torture, fur is torture, leather is torture. Just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD. We CAN eat meat but that doesn't mean we SHOULD. And if certain animals do not have rights then why should they not be eaten? Morality consists only in the violation or non-violation of rights. How would you decide who does and does not have rights. I'm very cyurious to know.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

You just used another one. Meat is not torture if the animal is killed without pain, so a blanket statement like that would be considered a logical fallacy. Here's why I don't advocate vegetarianism: "animals" don't exercise rights none the less understand them; they don't "dream"; they are not capable of morals; they act primarily on instinct (a dog doesn't think about food, it just feels hungry); they don't form loving life-long relationships; they don't understand emotion

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 First of all, almost exclusively animals used for meat are kept in conditions so bad they would be deemed torture if humans were killed in those conditions. Secondly, you are bringing the argument back to marginal humans. As you well know, many humans don't do the things you list. Thirdly, you are wrong in your assumptions. They in fact reek of human superiority. Mnay animals dream, some animals may be capable of moral behaviour, most animas can reason, and they DO have emotion

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

Then I would advocate for better conditions. Humans in general are capable of everything I listed and speciesism obviously comes into play for those who aren't (who are those people?). Emotions are very primitive so of course animals have them, but they don't understand them. They are not moral, unless you can show me empirical evidence. Animals do not dream of "better" things, which is what i meant. I am sorry but humans are very different.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 Humans are very different from other animals, indeed. No one is denying this. But why does this differenece justify our exploitation of them? If we are looking for a characteristic which grants rights, the only obvious quality is that of sentience, that is, the ability to experience pleasure and feel pain. Just because we are different from others doesn't mean we should exploit those others. This is what racists, sexists and homophobes do. It is also what speciesists do.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

Well humans are generally almost exactly the same regardless if they are women, gay etc and they possess everything I said "animals" don't. It doesn't justify our exploitation, but we will eat meat, kill animals, etc and I really don't think that in of itself is horrible because of what I mentioned. In fact, I think the pleasure we gain from it, if anything, justifies it. I'm not saying it's good; I'm saying it's not bad.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 But humans are not "almost exactly the same". There are a significant minority of marginal humans we could exploit under your view. If our exploitation of other animals is not justified, then it is wrong, by default. And saying we get a lot of pleasure from our routine torture, enslavement and murder of others is hardly a justification for continuing to do so. Alas, there are many parents who actually enjoy inflicting pain on their own children. On your view, that's OK.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

More logical fallacies. You should look them up as to avoid them in the future. I never said we get pleasure from torture/murder etc; we get it from the product. And I clearly stated the differences between humans and animals so don't bring up humans in the future. And I never said that pleasure justifies everything, just eating animals. Besides, its natural and normal to eat animals. Animals eat each other and don't think twice. And trust me we are all 99.5% the same.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 It is you, sir, who is guilty of using logical fallacies, not me. You have just used about seven in that one short paragraph. Now, since I'm not particularly busy at the moment, I'm going to debunk each one of these. Are ya ready? Firstly, getting pleasure from a product of torture and getting pleasure from torture itself are one and the same thing as far as morality is concerned. The sadist who is paid to torture children cannot get himself off the moral hook by ...(see below)

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 Secondly, you tell me not to bring up humans again. I wonder why. The reason you have told me to do that is because to do so would be fatal to your prejudiced argument. You have not rebutted my argument, merely ducked, dodged, evaded and ignored it. Thirdly, your contention that pleasure justifies nothing but eating animals is surely absurd. You cannot simply use convenience to justify things. It may well be convenient to use "pleasure" as an argument for ...(continued below)

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 ...routine torture, enslavement and murder of nonhumans but that does not make it right. Unless you can give a reason WHY pleasure justifies our torture of nonhuman animals but nothing else, it is a fallacious argument. Fourthly, you say it's natural to eat animals. Two points here. a) There is significant evidence we are herbivores. For one thing, our jaws are horizontal. Carnivores and omnivores have vertical teeth in order to crush bones. (Continued below)

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 For another, carnivores and omnivores have very short intestinal tracts (usually less than five times the length of their bodies). This is so all the saturated fat from the dead flesh they ingest gets out of the bodies quickly. The intestinal tracts of humans, by contrast, is 13 times the length of our bodies, suggesting we may be herbivores. b) Even if we are not herbivores (a claim I am perfectly willing to accept), this does not mean we should eat meat (Continued below)

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 As I have already articulated, just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD do it. The reason you eat meat is because you like its taste. It has nothing to do with its being "natural". Fifthly, you say it is normal to eat animals. In this regard, you are absolutely correct. Most humans eat meat. This is an utterly contingent affair to the ethics of eating meat,. however. At one time, as you surely know, most humans supported the enslavement of humans.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 This did not make it right. Just because something is normal does not mean it is right. Sixthly, you say that animals eat each other and don't think twice. This is a wonderful example of agency-patience confusion. Humans (most of them!) are moral agents. We are capable of understanding and acting upon moral principles. Unless we act under duress, we are responsible for what we do. Nonhumans, by contrast, are moral patients: they are incapable of doing these things (see below)

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

we are omnivores. we have canines. besides, I was wrong. We aren't "meant" to eat anything. We eat what we can. And I brought up reasons why humans are different than animals so please, if you understand debate, you will understand that I consider doing any harm to humans wrong. it is the killing itself that is wrong; it doesn't matter if you don't like/ hate doing it. Besides, your sentence is an oxymoron. A sadist that doesn't like inflicting pain?

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

I view it as wrong to kill or hurt humans. I view it as wrong to hurt "animals" or kill for fun, not kill them for product. That is my view and I hope you understand why you can't get off the moral hook for harming humans, because I view it as wrong no matter what. That is the fundamental difference between us so we need to argue why I consider animals lesser first. I don't value the lives of "animals" very much and, guess what, they don't either. My argument is prejudice.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 First of all can I ask you why you keep putting the word "animals" in quotation marks? Second of all, killing them for "prodcut", which I assume means meat, is analogous to killing them for fun. What is the difference between sport pleasure and palate pleasure? Thirdly, I'm sorry, but I don't understand you can't get off the moral hook for harming humans, for you have still neglected to give a reason why human suffering matters more than nonhuman suffering. (Continued below)

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

Because we are animals. By animals, I mean cows etc. People who kill animals because they enjoy killing often end up being psychopaths or violent people. People who kill them for product generally don't. That's what I meant. Death does not involve suffering. I am morally against the meat industry's techniques but animals can't comprehend death and don't think about it when they die. They just die. Humans have goals; humans can advance society; they have loved ones.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 Fourthly, yes, let us explore why you consider animals lesser. Fifthly, it goes without saying you don't value their lives much (at all, even?), but they certainly do, despite your contention they don't. Sixthly, it also goes without saying your argument is prejudice.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

Oh and I forgot to mention that we are definitely omnivores, by scientific consensus. Let's not argue that (I meant normal as in natural by the way). Would you view it as wrong for primitive people to eat meat? I forgot to extrapolate on a logical fallacy you made here: I view humans and "animals" as different, so comparing the killing and torture of them is fallacious. We are NOT talking about killing humans; we are discussing animals.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 Yes, let's not argue about the natural thing. Although you actually said "natural and normal", but anyway, I won't pursue that. Primitive people : no, they have no choice about eating meat. Whether YOU view humans as some sort of non-animal is an utterly contingent affair to animal ethics. Humans are animals and, as Peter Singer said, "In suffering, the animals are our equals". You may disupte the ethical implications of that, but you are not entitled to dispute the biology.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

The only pain anything feels is in life

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 Once again, the pervasive homocentric bias creeps into your reply. Clearly, not all humans have life plans, goals and loved ones. By contrast, many nonhuman animals have life plans, goals and loved ones. Your position is irredeemably speciesist. If you are unable to see that, I can only say that bald logic has its limits. Bigots will be bigots.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

Of course some don't but yes I am biased and speciesism comes into play, like I said before. It wouldn't be that bad if those types of people died, but how do you determine that? The line is too fuzzy to even talk about. Generally most humans aren't like that; all animals are. And those humans have the potential for all those things, even if they don't have them currently. How am I a bigot? I am not showing intolerance to anyone's beliefs, only expressing my own.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

Oh ya what product animals have goals etc.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

Before I go any further, I want to at least say that I'm glad there are people like you. I do have a huge bias towards humans than other animals, who are still mostly the same genetic-wise. Although I disagree with you, I understand that if those with similar beliefs as your own didn't exist, people like me wouldn't do enough to stop many cruelties preformed on animals.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 I'd like you to look up "full-personhood view". I think that fits in with what your view is. With regard to genetics, Mary Midgley made much the same argument in Animals And Why They Matter. You can look up that if you want as well. Perhaps that might move the debate forward.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

You are saying A and B are the same, therefore it is wrong to kill them. But I don't think A and B are the same. See what I mean? Looked up agency-patience confusion and found nothing. My point in that is that that is one reason I consider humans higher beings, how we are different.. No need for the personal attack dude; we just have different views. "we" is all humans and we are different relative to each other, but genetically and as organisms we are virtually identical.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 Therefore, they cannot be held accountable for their killing of others. We can. Even if they could, any such decision would be suicidal for carnivores. Also, are you happy to lower yourself to the intellectual level of a lion? You of all people surely cannot be happy about doing this, but that is obviously what you are doing. Finally, it is unclear what you mean when you say "we are all 99.5% the same". Who is "we" and what does the "99.5%" refer to? Genetics?

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

My last point is solely practical. The economy could not take the fall of the animal product industries.

[lukebeevers93]

@almostskater3210 Oh no, please please please don;t use the argument from economic necessity. You have now reached the lowest, most desperate point. You CANNOT justify ANYTHING by appealing to the economy. There are limits to what we can do in pursuit of profit - and causing sentient beings massive unnecessary harm oversteps these limits. Furthermore, as Peter Singer points out, the economy would only suffer once, while the animals have to suffer indefinitely.

[almostskater3210]

@lukebeevers93

What do you mean? The economy couldn't take it; that is just practical. I don't care about profit. I'm talking about people who would suffer due to it. Like I said, there is no suffering in death.

[TheTvrulesthenation]

almostskater3210

Please see Gary Franciones online articles that critique welfarism & the welfare movement + his articles on animals as property. He is a highly distinguished & regarded law and ethics professor, the arguments you bring in debating lukebeevers93 are extremely well addressed by him.

I encourage you to search for flaws in your line of thinking by looking at the oppositions argument, rather than youtube tennis-ball debating

[almostskater3210]

@TheTvrulesthenation

I don't really care enough about the topic, no offense. I am a neurologist so I mostly debate mental disease, drugs, etc. The bottom line is, I think it is a non issue. I don't care too much about animals to tell you the truth. I care whether they are in pain or not, but I don't care if we kill them for recreation, product, etc. I mean, I study the brain, and the differences between humans and most other animals is an obvious dividing line to me.

[Klytemnest]

Most people have no clue what constitutes a balanced diet. They rely on intuition and they are often wrong. Most vegetarians and vegans don't know what a balanced diet is. I sure didn't the whole time (seven years) I was a "vegetarian" and for my first two years if being vegan. So I am not surprised that Sam Harris did not feel well as a vegetarian. I didn't either. Boca burgers and pita bread are not exactly healthy...

[HumaneHominid]

Sam, you've made a pretzel of the question! Of course we shouldn't eat beings with greater consciousness than ourselves.

The real question is, if there were beings who stood in relation to our experience of the world as we stand to cows and pigs and chickens, would it be ethically-defensible for those beings to eat us?

Normally, the can-aliens-eat-humans question is rhetorical, but in your case, I'll make an exception. ;)

[tenhirankei]

@HumaneHominid Um, ever hear of cannabalism (of people).

[HumaneHominid]

@tenhirankei What's your point?

[tenhirankei]

@HumaneHominid There are people who eat other people. This is either through a belief that consuming one's enemy grants the eater the person's strength or abilities, or in extreme cases like "the Donner party" out of a survival instinct. In both cases the eater is fully aware that they are consuming someone who is like them in most respects and not an animal. Does that mean we can eat beings with similar consciousness to ourselves? If so, then we can eat those with much lesser.

[HumaneHominid]

@tenhirankei Those are extreme cases, and neither of them is routine. And you're close to deriving an ought from an is.

[tenhirankei]

@HumaneHominid I did mention that they were extreme cases. If you are going to argue that animals should not be eaten as even they have consciousness, then you would also have to cross off vegetables. Their biology is indeed different, but can you truly say they have no conscuousness whatsoever? Check "Plant Consciousness" Wiki. Or recall that horticulturalists say that plants respond to different kinds of music. Would that be possible of an insentient organism?

[HumaneHominid]

@tenhirankei The "plants have feelings too" idea is not worth considering, and you have lost all credibility by invoking it.

Arguing that it's defensible to eat other humans in extreme circumstances is not a defense of eating other conscious creatures, except in extreme circumstances.

In every day life, we do not live in such circumstances, and can meet all our nutrient needs without eating other conscious creatures. Hence, it is not defensible to eat them. They have an interest in their lives

[tenhirankei]

@HumaneHominid I did not say that it was defensible to eat other humans in extreme (or any other) circumstances. I merely point out that the practice does exist. I am a practicing omnivore-with mainly carnivorous tendencies (of animals). I only say that I disagree with the "consciousness" argument against the eating of meat. As to the "aliens-eat-humans" question, I refer you to the original Twilight series-episode "To Serve Man".

[HumaneHominid]

@tenhirankei Yeah, it exists. So what?

The topic here is whether, on Harris's grounds, eating other conscious creatures can be defended, especially when the arguments from necessity and extreme circumstances is rendered void. If your only response to this question is mere observation and Twilight Zone references, then I fail to see any point in discussing it with you further.

Unless you have an actual argument to make?

[tenhirankei]

@HumaneHominid So what? What kind of a response is that?

[beaelliott]

@tenhirankei No scientist worth serious consideration has proposed or confirmed that plants are sentient. The same folks that believe in the flying spaghetti monster think carrots "feel" pain. Nonsense.

[tenhirankei]

@beaelliott What about plants that respond to certain types of music? Or is that apocryphal?

[thinkofwhy]

My take on morality is based on a combination of organizational level of order and necessity. If you need to destroy something in order to obtain a vital resource, then destroy that which is the lowest level of order.

So, for food, I eat the lowest level of order possible, which are fruits and vegetables, and other non-animal life forms.

It's that simple.

[Klytemnest]

@thinkofwhy I am inclined to agree, but I need to clarify that the "levels of order" for me are dictated by degrees of sentience. Chances are the human beings are the most sentient beings - since in addition to being able to suffer physically, we are able to suffer emotionally to a high degree. We have the capacity for abstract thought, and we appear to be the only species that understand the concept of death and that it is imminent. I doubt that mosquitos are sentient on the same level.

[thinkofwhy]

@Klytemnest That is obviously true, but your comment does not address the point I made about vegetarianism. In fact, what is your point? Do you eat misquitos?

[thinkofwhy]

Oh, I didn't read on, d'oh.

[Klytemnest]

@thinkofwhy Also, I want to make sure that nonvegans reading this thread understand that vegans don't just eat fruits and veggies. We also eat legumes, grains, nuts and seeds. There is a great variety of plant foods out there, but because nonvegetarians consume so few plant foods, they think they might starve as vegans. Rolled oats with banans, berries, sliced almonds and walnuts, Peruano bean stew with with onions, tomato paste, spices, sauteed veggies, fruit sorbet - all good stuff!

[Klytemnest]

I'd be curious to know if Sam Harris is vegetarian or vegan. After reading "The End of Faith" in 2006 I decided to go vegan. I am sure Sam Harris' intention was not to "vegangelize", but once I read his statement that ethics are nothing if not founded on a concern for the suffering or well-being of *sentient* beings, that was it for me. I HAD to go vegan. The stupendous health benefits that followed were a mere bonus. So, I'm curious if Dr Harris is himself a vegan.

[jonwalksred]

@Klytemnest I'm right with you, except the catalyst for me was "The Moral Landscape", having not yet read "The End of Faith".

Re. Sam's diet, you probably already saw, but in another of these vids he explains that he was a vegetarian for 6 years but reverted to eating meat. However, he also said that he STILL thought Peter Singer's position was correct, and thus, in my opinion, admitting the flaws and hypocrisy in his renewed position (he does reference deficiency in a veggie diet also).

[Klytemnest]

@jonwalksred I saw the clip you referenced above. Actually, I think he is MORE generous than I would be if I were in his shoes. I think eating meat IS defensible if necessary for one's survival or well-being - and I'm a vegan. Sam Harris actually says that it eating meat is not defensible, period, and then quasi-apologetically confesses that he eats meat because he did not feel good as a vegetarian. I think a well-balanced vegan diet would make him feel great. Heck, I'll cook for him!

[jonwalksred]

@Klytemnest Yes, but how large of a demographic is that? I haven't researched it, but would imagine the percentage truly needing meat for "survival or well-being" is extremely low.

Further, whether a position is defensible is completely irrelevant to most. We observe this through any number of hypocritical and unexamined practices. I was just a little surprised that Sam of all people didn't feel good in absence of meat in his diet. As you point out, there are ample vitamin and protein subs.