addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Bay Area Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists/Freethinkers/Skeptics Message Board › How about this very simple ethical code?

How about this very simple ethical code?

A former member
Post #: 5
Larry, I completely agree with your essay. Wendy, although I don't believe in spirituality any more than I do in religion, I respect and appreciate your support of a more inclusive empathy.
Gavin I.
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 90
"You say you hungry,
I give you meat..."
Freddie Mercury.

new here, never Baptized, big D-Darwinist, small a atheist.

Spirituality, is an emotional state, as is hunger, happy, sad, and so on. It is a unique emotional state, worthy of its own word, but so is cranky. Spirituality refers to an emotional state where one feels a connection to a larger whole outside and including themselves. Someone who does not feel or believe in this connection/spirituality in some way, is very likely a sociopath. Just saying.

The Pete Singer/Animals First crowd hell-bent on replacing Rousseau's Noble Savage with Vegan Pussycat, as always ignore-find offensive two basic facts, 1. We live on a planet, 2. All planets are contained within a natural universe.

Sorry my Jedi brothers and sisters, you Trekies, you fellas Jonesing for a giant smurf babe, or old school Carter of Mars Dogs, them places are pure Twilight Zone, I'm talking about actual real world planets. No make believe or Sky Hook Planets allowed.

As far as Rodeos - the events and competitions are demonstrations of skill designed to protect the safety of the animal. Think of a rodeo as a Cop Olympics, only with Moo Cows instead of the economically disadvantaged. If your only exposure to a Rodeo is Glenn Beck referring to himself as a Rodeo Clown, you might take a moment to examine the metaphor, a Rodeo Clown's job is to come between a worker and an enraged animal - most famously, the Bull (the Market - get it) while entertaining the children.

As far as what function religion serves, how about as a social, economic, and reproductive, framework. Hope that clears it up for you.

Respect? Yes absolutely, I care how an animal is fed, cared for, and slaughtered, before I eat it. From what I see, The Christians are coming increasingly on board in the ethical treatment of food animals. Good luck getting Jews and Muslims to do the same. Seriously, why do atheists always go after the fundies and never the Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists? The problem with cattle production in this country is the over-production of corn, it's unhealthy for cattle and it's unhealthy for human beings. Last time I checked, corn is not an animal product.

As far as hunting is concerned, you are advocating starvation, disease, as the humane alternative, or maybe having Bambi's mom ripped to pieces and eaten alive by a non-human predator, as opposed to an instant death by a bullet through the heart?

Another problem with vegetarianism, is biologically speaking, a woman when preparing for the rigors of child-production and birth is better off health-wise, smoking a pack, and downing a couple of sixer's a day than she is forgoing meat. The science is there, look it up. Welcome to planet earth.

Which sadly leads us to our increased and disproportionally large Paleo-evolved, brain and body-bits, meaning, selected to eat, meat, fish, Spam, glorious Spam, veggies, fruits, and nuts.

And Larry, sure you can, http://www.nationalaf...­.
user 9892369
San Ramon, CA
Post #: 117

"Here's a test you can try at home: put a two-year-old in a playpen with an apple and a rabbit. If it plays with the apple and eats the rabbit, you've got a carnivore."
- cartoonist Dan Piraro
Gavin I.
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 91

A 2 year old omnivore, such as a pig, would no doubt eat both. A two year old carnivore such as doggie, probably wouldn't eat bunny if they know each other or are in a social environment. Ultimately, it comes down to the environment and how the individual animals get along, carnivore or not. (Spoken as someone involved with animal rescue, kitty division. I have footage of kittens supervised and guided by momma rat. ) Pluto and Bugs might work it out, or not, depending on the cartoonist.

Since we are sharing recipes

I do agree with the this sentence, "Treat all animals, not just the human ones, with respect." as a moral and ethical roadmap, but, "Let's stop being our planet's brutal dictators." How's that going to work? Mass extinction, maybe? Are you sure you're not an Abrahamic?

Ps. thanks Wendy for inspiring me to change my group photo.

A former member
Post #: 6
Good point Wendy. Furthermore, humans don't salivate at the scent of blood, nor do we have the claws, canine teeth or desire to tear animals apart and eat them raw, unless we're sadistic or deranged, so it's fair to say that most people of any age would be naturally inclined to play with the rabbit and eat the apple.
Gavin I.
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 93

Human being do salivate at cooking flesh and blood, those things at the end of your fingers you call nails are claws, feel free to put a thumb each on those pointy things in your mouth and your dentist whether you have canines or not, and your boy Singer is down with Oysters - generally eaten by ripped apart and raw. No face don't you know. He's also okay with eating human babies - not just the Irish ones.

Ergo, I agree characteristics of our species include sadistic and deranged.

Recommended reading

A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson.
A gentle introduction to Life, The Universe, Everything. Sub-atomic particles, all the way up through evolutionary history to you. As fine as atheist manifesto as you are likely to encounter and almost certain to ignore.

Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human, by Richard Wrangham.
Examines human anatomy and physiology to demonstrate the evolutionary evidence shows the control of fire and the cooking of meat (as opposed to eating it raw) turned us into the big-brained, meat-eating, social-omnivore you find just about everywhere.

The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, by Michael Pollan.
As a meat eating species, how to ethically go about doing that, given the complexities of the food industry and our expanding human population.

Welcome To The Monkey House: Kurt Vonnegut. A cautionary short story of what happens when ladies war against reality goes unchecked.

Recommended Viewing:
Supersize Me.

Hopefully, my baby bites kitten photo makes it through this time - the little sadist.

mike b
user 12279488
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 1

I'm not sure I should take your responses seriously. Hopefully no one reading this thread is.

"biologically speaking, a woman when preparing for the rigors of child-production and birth is better off health-wise, smoking a pack, and downing a couple of sixer's a day than she is forgoing meat. The science is there, look it up."

That claim is outrageous. Please provide links or citations to back it up. Keep in mind that we're all capable of googling "Smoking and pregnancy" and "Fetal alcohol syndrome."

"[Singer]'s also okay with eating human babies."

Really? When, where? I've read most of Singer's work (you're right that he speculates that oysters may not be capable of suffering or have conscious experiences) and listened to most of his online talks but have no clue what you could be referring to here.

Whether or not something is natural for humans has no bearing on whether it's morally defensible. It's natural for male humans to rape, to impregnate females much younger than the age of consent in the US.... Slavery, genocide, murdering your rivals, racism/tribalism all may be natural for humans. That has no bearing on whether they're morally justifiable.

An addition to your reading list above: I'd recommend you read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer if you haven't already. Singer provides a carefully documented (as opposed to anecdotal) review of practices in animal agriculture largely drawn from the industry's own trade journals. In Chapters 1 and 6, Singer also covers an argument regarding the moral significance of species membership he first advanced over 35 years ago. The argument is referred to in philosophical literature as "the argument from marginal cases" and has yet to be overturned.

Gavin I.
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 100
"That claim is outrageous. Please provide links or citations to back it up."

I did that, figure it out. I notice you did not mention googling anything to do with vegitarianism and pregnancy. The bottom line is it's on you to refute the evidence I presented, Vonnegut included.

I guessing I'm giving you too much credit in your switching your argument from ethics to morals, vegetarianism to, rape based on my referencing the Monkey House story, but I will address it, none the less. I was making an analogy between women and their sycophants who are ethically outraged with primates who masturbate in a caged and unnatural environment, and the unintended consequences of their acts of stupidity they unleash on the world, and women who are ethically outraged with the consumption of meat and the unintended consequence they unleash on their biological children.

I was not advocating, nor do I agree with the victim-based, feminist hate-spewers, who falsely believe, "It's natural for male humans to rape, to impregnate females much younger than the age of consent in the US.... Slavery, genocide, murdering your rivals, racism/tribalism all may be natural for humans. That has no bearing on whether they're morally justifiable."

Morally justifiable? I will grant this isn't an atheist only meetup, but still, where do you think these morals come from?

Feel free to add, "The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating" to the list of books you are never going to read.

As far as Singer's book, Charles Darwin refuted Singer's argument - call it what you will, and was long dead and buried, before Singer made the argument. Singer is almost certainly never going to make a recommended reading of mine - other than as comedic nonsense. An argument that never had standing, needs no rebuttal. Sociobiology by E.O.Wilson, published the same year, as Singer's Animal Liberation, is still relevant, unlike Singer's well-intended, but misguided curiosity.

As I recall, Singer discussed eating human infants in an interview with Richard Dawkins.

As someone who has shucked oysters, I can assure you, in the struggle for existence, they fight to survive, the same as you and me.
A former member
Post #: 2
I agree with the above ethical code, with the exception that I eat meat from animals that have been couped up and otherwise treated inhumanely. I have tried several times to become vegan or vegetarian, but my body rebels and I start to get all sorts of aches and pains. I am too cheap to buy range fed chickens, so I just keep eating super market chickens. I feel a little guilty about it, but not enough to make me stop.
mike b
user 12279488
San Francisco, CA
Post #: 2
Wow Gavin, I have no ability to follow what you're saying.... I can't imagine that anyone else does either.

Please provide the link to the Dawkins interview where Singer allegedly justifies eating human babies. Btw, neither I nor Singer definitively claim that Oysters are not sentient.

Your response is too schizophrenic and disconnected for me to address. Maybe you should take some critical thinking or philosophy courses to subject yourself to the discipline of having to write your thoughts down in a coherent, linear manner for someone else to read.

It's not clear to me that you can articulate Singer's "argument from marginal cases." But if you can articulate it and show how Darwin has already defeated it you would make a monumental contribution to academic ethics. The fact, though, that you would claim that Singer's argument never had standing reveals that you're not even aware that there has been a substantial body of literature in academic philosophy that has grown since 1975 on the moral consideration of nonhuman animals.

This is really not a good use of either of our time or abilities. So I'm just going to end with one last point not specifically relating to the moral consideration of nonhuman animals or to what you've said. More a point on moral philosophy:

I was not accusing you of believing that rape or slavery is natural. I was making the point that it's very possible that things we would currently find morally abhorrent are actually 'natural' for the human species to do. Such a possibility could not be ruled out a priori and is an empirical question. Now take any behavior that we all think is terrible and cannot be justified: I don't know.... say.... Killing suckling infants with the edge of a sword because you're at war with their parents [to take an example out of 1 Samuel]. We all find that action morally repugnant (offensive to our sensibilities), whether it happened a few years ago in Africa or whether it's part of some ancient religious mythology. Now, if someone, say a scientist, were to come along and say "Wait. Wait. It's ok to chop up those babies because it's natural for humans to do that. See, you might feel morally outraged about that but it's because you don't understand that it's perfectly natural for humans to chop up their enemies' babies. Humans killed their enemies' babies all throughout their evolutionary history." We wouldn't recognize what the scientist says as being a reason we shouldn't be outraged at the thought of someone committing such an act. Whether or not something is natural on it's own has no bearing on whether it's morally defensible.

Anyway, that was my stump speech more for moral philosophy than for moral veganism.

Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy