Atheists, Ethics & Medical Experimentation

PDN

I would genuinely like to get some insights from atheists as to how you form a moral code without a belief in God. This is not an argument, so anyone wanting to hurl insults or pick fights should find another thread. Please note that I am not suggesting that atheists lack morality or ethics, I am just curious as to how you reach them.

Let's take the field of medical experimentation. I can understand fully an atheist who believes that it is wrong to conduct any animal experimentation whatsoever. The reasoning that it is wrong to mutilate another living creature, irrespective of any good that may result, certainly requires no belief in God.

I can also understand (while obviously violently opposing) the reasoning of someone like Mengele who experimented on humans. If he saw no essential difference between a Jew and a chimpanzee, then it would be acceptable to him to experiment on either.

Now, I suspect a good proportion of the atheists who post here would, under some conditions, support medical experimentation on animals. I also suspect (and fervently hope!) that the same people would be opposed to medical experimentation on humans. I want to understand why. Is it just a gut feeling? Does one just feel right while the other feels wrong? If human beings are simply just another species of mammal (rather than a category apart, as I believe) then what is the difference?

I would appreciate your responses.

PDN

Zillah

The vast majority of Atheists/Agnostics that I've met base their morality on a very simple, and very common notion. Although they might not phrase it as such, it essentially amounts to "Do as little harm as possible", with the caveat that me, my friends and my family are the most important, other people the next most important, animals like us the next most important and so on.

Ultimately its as baseless as any other morality, but it is one that is conducive to a functioning society.

Hence, the basis for animal experimentation is there; it depends on how strong a line they draw between human and animal. And that is very much a gut reaction, how bad they feel if they think of a chimpanzee being experimented on in such a fashion.

Personally I think I lean just about in favour of animal experimentation for life saving/salvaging medicine. I hate that its neccessary, I truly do, but then again I grudingly accept that it is neccessary. Were I crippled with a neuro degenerative disease and I was offered medicine that could cure me, I'd take it in a second, regardless of the animal suffering that was required to make its existence possible. With that in mind, it would be quite hypocritical of me to then indulge my "No!! Save the animals!" instinct merely because it is someone else suffering the disease rather than myself.

There also has to be a degree of responsibility involved. Its not enough to say "Animal experimentation is ok" and then mercilessly slaughter as many animals as you like for your experiments. I'd demand that the number of animals involved, and their degree of suffering be kept as low as is feasibly possible. The initial term "Do as little harm as possible" still stands.

Scofflaw

I would argue that medical experimentation on animals (and even plants) is wrong - life is life, even where it is difficult to weigh or measure. I had a long argument with Schuhart on the subject (here).

To be honest, I think most people draw the line based on gut instinct - humans are different. I've yet to meet anyone who has a good non-religious reason for the claim, since all the measures used to show the difference between humans and non-humans are subjective, and have been used down the years to show that Jews, or negroes, or ethnic-group-of-choice, weren't really human.

Clearly, it's hard to operate practically on the basis that all life is equally sacred. I do what I can, and feel bad about the rest...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Now, I suspect a good proportion of the atheists who post here would, under some conditions, support medical experimentation on animals. I also suspect (and fervently hope!) that the same people would be opposed to medical experimentation on humans. I want to understand why.

I'm certainly happy to answer for myself, but as ever I would point out that atheism isn't a belief system, so the reasons I give might be completely different to the reasons given by another atheists.

To me I value human sentience as being valuable. I do this for the rather selfish reason that I value my own conscious thought and self-aware state as being valuable for obvious reasons, and through the emotion of empathy this conclusion that my active brain has value extends to others.

Again I do not wish harm done to me, so I naturally assume others do not wish harm done to them. The "Golden Rule" as it is known (and which btw pre-dates Jesus' musings on the matter)

Most of my stances on morality are drawn as rational conclusions from these two premises, that my consciousness has value and that I do not wish harm done to me

Medical experimentation on animals is a difficult area for morality, because it is difficult to gauge how a like other animals are to us. For example members of the Great Ape family (like ourselves) seem to exhibit almost human like signs of self-awareness and consciousness. These are the traits that we consider to be valuable in us. An ant on the other hand doesn't.

How someone feels about the treatment of animals will depend on if they feel the animal possesses the valuable part that a human possesses.

Schuhart

Scofflaw pointed out the earlier thread, which did cover an amount of ground relevant to the matter. I’m doing an amount of reading at present aimed at clearing my own thoughts in this space. I’ll set down how I see it at present, but stress these thoughts are just a work in progress.

Morality is a human creation. It only comes about when we get sophisticated enough to make it. The only valid basis I can see for it is some kind of a social contract idea. Inevitably, that means the rights and obligations will be defined from a human perspective as animals don’t have the intellectual capability to engage in that process. That doesn’t necessarily mean that animals are written off, but it does mean that they get treated according to what we deem their rights to be – including experimentation. It means that all that prevents gratuitous cruelty is our own sense that it’s a bit sick for a person to actively seek to inflict pain.

To my mind, this does raise the possibility that morality actually doesn’t exist as something separate to human self interest – i.e. we all effectively agree to a particular morality because we see it to be in our individual interests to behave ethically, even in situations where there is no obvious or immediate payback, as some day we may depend on strangers treating us decently.

I’d add the standard point that I don’t see morality as necessarily being any clearer when we introduce religion – it just looks like it is. Following a rule because God will punish you is surely just self interest too.

But even more confusing is the way that morality seems to exist outside of religion. If we read the bit in the Old Testament that says we must always cut off a woman’s hand if she seizes her husband’s assailant by the genitals, we dismiss it as meaningless because we can see rule makes no moral sense. On the other hand, we can appreciate the Biblical quote that invites us to treat others as we would like to be treated as a noble idea.

We dismiss one part of the Bible and accept the other because our morality seems to come from somewhere other than scripture. (Incidently, I’ve seen similar points arising in articles written by Muslims who puzzled over quotes from Quran/Hadith which offended commonsense morality and persisted in their studies until they found an interpretation that suits what we would independently arrive at as moral.) I guess (because, as I said, I’m still studying the matter) that morality comes out of the development of human culture (if we can leave 'human culture' as an undefined broad term that hopefully still communicates some meaning).

That’s really all that makes us special compared to animals – it’s a value we grant each other. Looking at it one way, instead of God saying ‘you are made in my image’ we collectively say to each other ‘we are made in the same image’.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Medical experimentation on animals is a difficult area for morality, because it is difficult to gauge how a like other animals are to us. For example members of the Great Ape family (like ourselves) seem to exhibit almost human like signs of self-awareness and consciousness. These are the traits that we consider to be valuable in us. An ant on the other hand doesn't.

How someone feels about the treatment of animals will depend on if they feel the animal possesses the valuable part that a human possesses.

Which is exactly the argument that allows the racist to claim that some 'other race' does not possess whatever attribute that is...

Schuhart wrote:

Morality is a human creation. It only comes about when we get sophisticated enough to make it. The only valid basis I can see for it is some kind of a social contract idea. Inevitably, that means the rights and obligations will be defined from a human perspective as animals don’t have the intellectual capability to engage in that process. That doesn’t necessarily mean that animals are written off, but it does mean that they get treated according to what we deem their rights to be – including experimentation. It means that all that prevents gratuitous cruelty is our own sense that it’s a bit sick for a person to actively seek to inflict pain.

It still baffles me how you get from "humans decide what morality is" to "all that prevents gratuitous cruelty is our own sense that it’s a bit sick for a person to actively seek to inflict pain". It is as possible to say that animals have rights equal to our own as it is to say that they don't.

Schuhart wrote:

To my mind, this does raise the possibility that morality actually doesn’t exist as something separate to human self interest – i.e. we all effectively agree to a particular morality because we see it to be in our individual interests to behave ethically, even in situations where there is no obvious or immediate payback, as some day we may depend on strangers treating us decently.

An idea that holds no water. There's no self-interested reason for much of human morality - why do Jains treat all life as sacred? Why do I consider it so? How can it possibly serve my self-interest to carefully catch flies and throw them out the window rather than swatting them (an exercise which is reasonably enjoyable)?

For PDN's benefit - while I and Schuhart did indeed cover a lot of ground, we are far from resolved...

Schuhart wrote:

That’s really all that makes us special compared to animals – it’s a value we grant each other. Looking at it one way, instead of God saying ‘you are made in my image’ we collectively say to each other ‘we are made in the same image’.

Except those who we don't think are made in the same image...exactly the same problem as Wicknight. An arbitrary dividing line based on woolly concepts of "similarity" means everyone is free to pick and choose who they think is human.

I am sure people are reaching for the "well, we're all H. sapiens" - don't bother. That's just another way of placing the dividing line, with no more force than "Caucasian", because there's no particular justification for choosing species rather than race or Phylum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

It is as possible to say that animals have rights equal to our own as it is to say that they don't.

But as we know that takes us into what 'equal' means which brings us to that equality being 'appropriate' to the creature which, to my mind, means we've left equality behind. Would clarifying 'appropriate' actually leave us with the same gap in practice?

Scofflaw wrote:

There's no self-interested reason for much of human morality - why do Jains treat all life as sacred?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on that outlook, which I think we know takes considerable personal commitment to put into practice. But I thought that Buddhism has to do with trying to, on the one hand, identify what is 'me' in that sense that 'I' am not the physical sensations of my body or my impulses or thoughts. That process promises enlightenment, which seems to be a state of perfect mental calm and knowledge. Achieving that state is presumably worth accepting whatever goes with the discipline - which is a potential self-interest argument.

I'm also mindful of that recent case of the Buddhist temple that was infested with ants. From what I can gather the monks are prevented from dealing with the ants as it conflicts with their personal discipline. But the idea that someone else might sort them out, while not something they would encourage, is at the same time acceptable to them.

Scofflaw wrote:

How can it possibly serve my self-interest to carefully catch flies and throw them out the window rather than swatting them (an exercise which is reasonably enjoyable)?

Question from left field - do you catch them and throw them out the window simply because you cannot see an objective reason not to grant them equal status? I would have felt that a positive action like that would require some positive feeling of brotherhood - ie not merely an absence of an objective reason not to, but the presence of a positive reason to. Does this have any relevance to what actually goes through your mind while you do it?

(Incidently, when confronted by a particularly annoying fly that refuses a proferred open window, I have been known to stand with a rolled up newspaper and say 'Use the Force, Luke' before attacking making light sabre sounds. I'm not suggesting your behaviour is less sane than mine.)

Scofflaw wrote:

there's no particular justification for choosing species rather than race or Phylum.

Other than the idea that morality is only a notional contract that we've drawn up - in which case its pretty meaningless talking about animals being contracting parties.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

But as we know that takes us into what 'equal' means which brings us to that equality being 'appropriate' to the creature which, to my mind, means we've left equality behind. Would clarifying 'appropriate' actually leave us with the same gap in practice?

Not really, although it would sometimes be the case. If an animal can feel pain, the claim of equality would suggest that they have the same right to not having pain gratuitously inflicted on them as do humans. In the case of medical experimentation, the rights of an animal not to be experimented on it are the same as a humans'.

Where we actually have a difficulty there is "informed consent". It is probably impossible to claim informed consent in the case of animals, so, frankly, human volunteers would be more ethically palatable.

There are obvious practical drawbacks to implementing such an approach...

Schuhart wrote:

I'm not claiming to be an expert on that outlook, which I think we know takes considerable personal commitment to put into practice. But I thought that Buddhism has to do with trying to, on the one hand, identify what is 'me' in that sense that 'I' am not the physical sensations of my body or my impulses or thoughts. That process promises enlightenment, which seems to be a state of perfect mental calm and knowledge. Achieving that state is presumably worth accepting whatever goes with the discipline - which is a potential self-interest argument.

As far as I know, this is not applicable to the Jains.

Schuhart wrote:

Question from left field - do you catch them and throw them out the window simply because you cannot see an objective reason not to grant them equal status? I would have felt that a positive action like that would require some positive feeling of brotherhood - ie not merely an absence of an objective reason not to, but the presence of a positive reason to. Does this have any relevance to what actually goes through your mind while you do it?

Actually, I find flies hugely revolting. Spiders I used to be phobic about, and surprising me with one still gets a good laugh. I have to work quite hard to ignore the ringing I get in my ears when dealing with anything with more than 4 legs. Yes, it's purely a moral committment, and something I sometimes have to remind myself of. Mosquitoes are a bit of an issue, mind you - they're expecting to profit by my inconvenience...

Schuhart wrote:

(Incidently, when confronted by a particularly annoying fly that refuses a proferred open window, I have been known to stand with a rolled up newspaper and say 'Use the Force, Luke' before attacking making light sabre sounds. I'm not suggesting your behaviour is less sane than mine.)

Wait until they settle, and catch them in a glass - slide a paper under it and chuck them out. The trick is (a) to move reasonably slowly, and (b) to bring the glass down slightly in front of them, because their startle reflex launches them forward.

You're right, though, one misses out somewhat on the silly savagery of light-sabre demos...if you're a light-sabre fan, you might enjoy this very pointless game.

Schuhart wrote:

Other than the idea that morality is only a notional contract that we've drawn up - in which case its pretty meaningless talking about animals being contracting parties.

Since we accept children, the insane, the unborn, those in a persistently vegetative state, and a variety of others who are clearly incapable of being contracting parties as if they were party to said moral contract, that clearly isn't the way it's done.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lostexpectation

I think most atheist do see a solid (but progressed) distinction between humans and animals and even apes.

Although maybe some see ourselves as just another creature on this world not just another mammal and certainly not as don't own the place as the worst of western christianity and recently the pope advisor seems to say.

Its about cruelty, its not just about what happens to the victim of the experiment but the creutly carried out by the experimenter.

A category apart,what do you mean by that?

I presume mengal was brought up christian or where did he get his grudge against Jews from? Either that or it was superiority complex that was his downfall you sohuld watch out for the PDN.

Cardinal

This thread has quickly moved away from the original question, but I'm just going to answer the OP.

The main question seems to be, "how do atheists form a moral code without a belief in God." My response to this is that atheists form a moral code the same way the majority of believers do. A large part of it is passed down from parent to child. In a believing family the only difference is that the reason for these moral is that they are God's will, and the children asked to believe unquestioningly. In a non-believing family the same or similar morals are past on and the children are asked to accept them, perhaps to question them, but to accept them as their parents wisdom.

The non-believing child is also brought up with the tools of doubt and skepticism, thought science and ethics and the limits of both and how they interact. As this child gets older they have the equipment to question their morals, and change them as our understanding of the universe changes.

The believing child however, is thought that dogmatic belief is a virtue. One would think that their morals would be unchanging, as they are the word of God, unchanged, but history has shown that the morals of any religious group change dramatically over time, generally in line with the morals of their greater cultural group. However, if this child grows to believe they morals they were brought up with strongly enough, they will retard the progress of human morals, where new discoveries contradict their own.

Cardinal

As for the ensuing conversation at least one valuable objective tool is being overlooked. Sentience. A fly for instance does not have a sufficiently complex brain to be sentient. While it mechanically reacts to what we would call pain with reflexive actions, it does not suffer pain as a human does.

I am not so certain about animals with more complex brains, and where one draws the line between sentient and non-sentient, but a fly certainly, is not sentient.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I would genuinely like to get some insights from atheists as to how you form a moral code without a belief in God. This is not an argument, so anyone wanting to hurl insults or pick fights should find another thread. Please note that I am not suggesting that atheists lack morality or ethics, I am just curious as to how you reach them.

Let's take the field of medical experimentation. I can understand fully an atheist who believes that it is wrong to conduct any animal experimentation whatsoever. The reasoning that it is wrong to mutilate another living creature, irrespective of any good that may result, certainly requires no belief in God.

I can also understand (while obviously violently opposing) the reasoning of someone like Mengele who experimented on humans. If he saw no essential difference between a Jew and a chimpanzee, then it would be acceptable to him to experiment on either.

Now, I suspect a good proportion of the atheists who post here would, under some conditions, support medical experimentation on animals. I also suspect (and fervently hope!) that the same people would be opposed to medical experimentation on humans. I want to understand why. Is it just a gut feeling? Does one just feel right while the other feels wrong? If human beings are simply just another species of mammal (rather than a category apart, as I believe) then what is the difference?

I would appreciate your responses.

PDN

Hi PDN,
Here's a good book on morals you might enjoy which I have just finished reading.

Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong
Marc Hauser
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/026-1455651-6986069?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178096609&sr=8-2

Hauser argues that mind has an inbuilt moral framework in the same way Chomsky argued that the mind has an inbuilt language framework. He also argues that like Chomsky, the framework is then usually filled by cultural influences.

Personaly, I am happen to go with morals actually evolved from natural selection. As I have said in another post, it increases our survival chances as a species if we work together. I don't have with experimenting with humans as long as it is part of their consent. For example, many people after they die request for the body to be offered for scientific research.

As for animals, well our brains are programmed to have lower empathy values to them because they are genetically more different. You might enjoy Richard Dawkins "Selfish Gene" here.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

There are obvious practical drawbacks to implementing such an approach...

And exploring those practical drawbacks might well lead to us saying 'well, morality is sort of our invention. So long as we don't inflict pure torture on the poor creatures, I suppose we can allow ourselves the ability to eat and experiment on them. Like cats do much the same, including playing with their kill for practice'.

Scofflaw wrote:

As far as I know, this is not applicable to the Jains.

I can't claim any knowledge - my possibly incorrect picture of Jains is they're basically coming from the same outlook as Buddhists. Do they regard animals as having the same chance of enlightenment as humans?

Scofflaw wrote:

Since we accept children, the insane, the unborn, those in a persistently vegetative state, and a variety of others who are clearly incapable of being contracting parties as if they were party to said moral contract, that clearly isn't the way it's done.

You'll understand that the moral contract is really just a theoretical construction - its not that any of us signs anything, its really just a tool to inquire 'how might a group of well-intentioned people do this'.

We do share human kinship wth people that lack capacity, in a way that we don't with animals. Even just pausing on the self interest argument, it becomes one where we acknowledge each of us might be incapacitated or have a child who is incapacitated and decide this was not grounds to remove kinship. In practical terms, we know that means someone else exercising the rights on that person's behalf until they are able to take them on themselves - which may be never. I don't see a path through which arguments for moral treatment of incapacitated humans transfer over to fully capacitated animals.

Cardinal wrote:

I am not so certain about animals with more complex brains, and where one draws the line between sentient and non-sentient, but a fly certainly, is not sentient.

I think there's a valid point in there, but defining it is not easy.

In particular, we do need to consider where that leaves a person who has a profound intellectual disability. Very few people fit into this category - most people with intellectual disability are most certainly sentient, even if special protection might be necessary for certain purposes. But I understand that there would be a few hundred people in Ireland who have a level of disability that means they would not show a lot of evidence of awareness of the world around them.

I think we know where we want to get to - that they are including in the human community as much as possible. But sentience alone isn't an argument for that. It think this reflects that thing - we seem to have a concept of morality in mind for which we seek arguments to support - secular arguments if we are atheist, and scriptural arguments if we are theist.

Cardinal

Schuhart wrote:

In particular, we do need to consider where that leaves a person who has a profound intellectual disability. Very few people fit into this category - most people with intellectual disability are most certainly sentient, even if special protection might be necessary for certain purposes. But I understand that there would be a few hundred people in Ireland who have a level of disability that means they would not show a lot of evidence of awareness of the world around them.

I think we know where we want to get to - that they are including in the human community as much as possible. But sentience alone isn't an argument for that. It think this reflects that thing - we seem to have a concept of morality in mind for which we seek arguments to support - secular arguments if we are atheist, and scriptural arguments if we are theist.

I wouldn't be advocating 100% reliance on sentience/non-sentience as the critereon for deciding what constitutes a creature which is suitable for experimentation, but it can certainly help to guide us. For instance, a person who is so severly brain damaged that they are no longer sentient, would not be an acceptable test subject. If not for any rational reasons then for "common sense" reasons.

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

I don't see a path through which arguments for moral treatment of incapacitated humans transfer over to fully capacitated animals.

I know you don't. However, it's clear from your arguments that this is because the real criterion is "being human the way I define human", which is pretty much the way all humans define it.

I know this argument seems off-track from the OP, but it's not. The answers that people will give to the OP about how atheists form morality will no doubt claim greater rationality than the theist, but much of the so-called rationality will turn out merely to be apologetics each poster's version of "being human the way I define human". Things like this:

Cardinal wrote:

For instance, a person who is so severly brain damaged that they are no longer sentient, would not be an acceptable test subject. If not for any rational reasons then for "common sense" reasons.

"Common sense reasons" = "being human the way I define human". How much sentience is required? Consider the following quote:

"the educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a clown."

How will you measure sentience? How will your criteria prevent the racist from claiming that his chosen hate-group(s) are not human by this measure?

cordially, if a little sorrowfully,
Scofflaw

How do we form morals without a god? Personal opinion - same as anyone else, we just don't decide ours is divinely inspired.
Buddhist precepts help me along too

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

However, it's clear from your arguments that this is because the real criterion is "being human the way I define human", which is pretty much the way all humans define it.

Indeed, but does your use of the term 'all humans' not illustrate that the term is quite meaningful?

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

However, it's clear from your arguments that this is because the real criterion is "being human the way I define human", which is pretty much the way all humans define it.

Indeed, but does your use of the term 'all humans' not illustrate that the term is quite meaningful?

No, it just indicates that I also have a definition of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

No, it just indicates that I also have a definition of it.

Would that definition be 'entities that form subjective definitions of what it is to be human'?

Scofflaw

Schuhart wrote:

Would that definition be 'entities that form subjective definitions of what it is to be human'?

Too circular...

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

In recent times I've been thinking about this and all morality really is to me is self defined and imposed limits relating to what I think will make me happy and not harm others.

One example of such a limit would be that I don't really care about animal welfare and I am happy to eat meat and to allow animal testing. In doing this I am effectively drawing a line between humans and animals and setting 2 different standards for each.

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote:

In recent times I've been thinking about this and all morality really is to me is self defined and imposed limits relating to what I think will make me happy and not harm others.

One example of such a limit would be that I don't really care about animal welfare and I am happy to eat meat and to allow animal testing. In doing this I am effectively drawing a line between humans and animals and setting 2 different standards for each.

IT's a good point, if one is adamant about evolution theory and all animals are our sentients cousins we shouldn't be eating them. We don't have to eat them. We could live without eating them. I think Veggie's have a point here and I will admit I am just a weak person on this issue as I eat meat.

JC 2K3

Evolution has no goal, animals taste good, what's your point?

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote:

Evolution has no goal, animals taste good, what's your point?

There is nothing special about our species over another sentient species i.e. we're not made by some magic deity who confers us more priviledge over other sentient species.
We know we could live without eating them but we choose to eat them. Well how would we like it if another species had the choice of eating us or not eating us and just ate us.

My point is irrelevant of evolution having no goal. It's purely about ethics.

JC 2K3

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well how would we like it if another species had the choice of eating us or not eating us and just ate us.

We don't have to care.

I could care if I chose to care, but I have decided it easier and workable not to.

Scofflaw

JC 2K3 wrote:

We don't have to care.

I could care if I chose to care, but I have decided it easier and workable not to.

Indeed - and while we might consider it unethical to take bribes, or shoot people for fun, it is perfectly possible for someone to takes bribes and shoot people for fun, because it is "easier and workable" for them. Fortunately for them, this would be ethical under your system.

Your personal decision that doing as you please works for you is not a moral or ethical decision, but a pragmatic one. It is of no use in determining whether the actions of others are immoral, or whether anything should have rights.

On the other hand, it illustrates very well the problem of using arbitrary boundaries, for which I thank you...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

JC 2K3 wrote:

We don't have to care.

I could care if I chose to care, but I have decided it easier and workable not to.

Would you consider self deprecation important?

Dades

Since the first carnivore appeared, there has always been a food chain.
Aren't we're just the animal at the top of it?

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

Since the first carnivore appeared, there has always been a food chain.
Aren't we're just the animal at the top of it?

Not if you go swimming with a Great White Shark you aren't!

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Since the first carnivore appeared, there has always been a food chain.
Aren't we're just the animal at the top of it?

Yes but just that begs the question is it right that we eat everything below us, yes or no?

Arguments for no:
* Say if our species divereged and a new species Homo Sapien + was bigger, stronger and more intelligent than Homo Sapien, is it right that they eat us when they know they could just go veggie? What argument would we have if we have been eating everything underneath us prior to the arrival of Homo Sapien + - none.

* We don't need to eat everything "underneath" us. We know what nutrients we need to remain healthy and we know we don't have to eat meat to get them. We choose to eat it.

* Farmed animals emit green house gases, if one is to give out about SUVs, one could make the same argument meat eating.

* Several farmed animals are treated appaulingly. No need to elaborate here. Would we like homo species +, bred us specifically to eat and kept us alive in little cages until we were ready for the chop.

* Animals are cousins, they are sentient, living feeling creatures. No sane person would think there is not a difference between sawing a tree and sawing a cow's leg when both are alive. However, culturally we accept eating meat in much the same we culturally just accept religion or faith without questioning is it right?

Arguments for yes:
* Meat taste nice.

I think the Veggies win this one hands down an dI have no problem admitting I am wrong. I think many carnivores just don't like to fear admitting they could be wrong or unethical, as it just part of the human condition to admit weakness, incorrectess etc.

Tar.Aldarion

PDN wrote:

I would genuinely like to get some insights from atheists as to how you form a moral code without a belief in God. This is not an argument, so anyone wanting to hurl insults or pick fights should find another thread. Please note that I am not suggesting that atheists lack morality or ethics, I am just curious as to how you reach them.

Let's take the field of medical experimentation. I can understand fully an atheist who believes that it is wrong to conduct any animal experimentation whatsoever. The reasoning that it is wrong to mutilate another living creature, irrespective of any good that may result, certainly requires no belief in God.

I can also understand (while obviously violently opposing) the reasoning of someone like Mengele who experimented on humans. If he saw no essential difference between a Jew and a chimpanzee, then it would be acceptable to him to experiment on either.

Now, I suspect a good proportion of the atheists who post here would, under some conditions, support medical experimentation on animals. I also suspect (and fervently hope!) that the same people would be opposed to medical experimentation on humans. I want to understand why. Is it just a gut feeling? Does one just feel right while the other feels wrong? If human beings are simply just another species of mammal (rather than a category apart, as I believe) then what is the difference?

I would appreciate your responses.

PDN

To me, there is no difference. I am against animal testing, including humans. If I were for it, I would be for it in humans too. I see a human I don't know and an animal I don't know the same way, an animal I don't know. I don't have double standards because they are 'my' species.
I would see myself as more hypocritical if I did have such a standard, after claiming that I think animals and humans are equal.
I can live without killing an animal for food, so i don't, needless murder for pleasure in my eyes.

How do I draw my morals?
My sense of logic, opinion, subjectivity.

PDN

This is interesting. I thought the discussion might get onto vegetarianism. Of course as a Christian this is much simpler for me. If God wanted us to be vegetarians then He wouldn't have made animals out of meat.

I find it interesting that some atheists see it as ethical to eat some animals but not others. For example, I have eaten both dog meat and dolphin steaks yet a friend of mine strongly argued that eating dogs was wrong, not just on sentimental grounds, but ethical grounds. This cannot be an issue of sentinence because I understand that dolphins are considered to be more intelligent than your average mutt.

I have never eaten chimpanzee, but a friend of mine assures me they taste excellent. I don't see any ethical problem with eating a chimp. Then again, I'm not aware that the Bible specifically forbids eating human flesh. So maybe I would agree with Buddha's approach to eating meat - it may be ethically OK to consume human flesh, but killing a person for that purpose would be both unethical and illegal.

Tar.Aldarion

For a lot of people, the cuter/furrier an animal is, the more rights it should have, which includes the right to not be eaten. Nonsense.

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

For a lot of people, the cuter/furrier an animal is, the more rights it should have, which includes the right to not be eaten. Nonsense.

It all depends where you are in the world. People eat dogs around SE Asia, cows safely wander the streets of India, Middle Eastern pigs are safe, but South Americans eat guinea pigs by the truckload (like chicken I assure you)...

Is one only justified in eating meat if you are poor and can't afford multivitamins or a diversity of farm produce?

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

It all depends where you are in the world. People eat dogs around SE Asia, cows safely wander the streets of India, Middle Eastern pigs are safe, but South Americans eat guinea pigs by the truckload (like chicken I assure you)...

Is one only justified in eating meat if you are poor and can't afford multivitamins or a diversity of farm produce?

One distinction with dogs, or at least with domesticated dogs is that they have not evolved from artificial selection, they have evolved from artificial selection. Some breeds especially. Dito any domesticated animal.

Apparently, if you pick the least aggressive fox, and breed it and repeat this process 40 times, you end up with a playful little fox which resembles a puppy dog!

Tal.Aldarion is right, my only point is I think it's takes strenght to be someone like Tal.Aldarion on this issue, the argument is clear and rational. Some of us don't have the strength of character to live it. We should be honest and humble about that.

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

It all depends where you are in the world. People eat dogs around SE Asia, cows safely wander the streets of India, Middle Eastern pigs are safe, but South Americans eat guinea pigs by the truckload (like chicken I assure you)...

I know that, I am just saying how it is for a lot of people.

Is one only justified in eating meat if you are poor and can't afford multivitamins or a diversity of farm produce?

Morality is subjective so I assume you are just asking my opinion. If is a choice of kill or die, that is up to the individual in question. Where we live, life is simply luxuriant, I can not justify eating meat whatsoever(Even though meat is my favourite food by far, all I ate as a child.), especially as there is fake meat readily available, which in some cases tastes better than the real thing.

Tar.Aldarion

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

For a lot of people, the cuter/furrier an animal is, the more rights it should have, which includes the right to not be eaten. Nonsense.

I duno, I think ducks and chickens are awfully cute (we keep both, they really are) and while I rarely eat the former and sometimes the latter I do still eat them...
if they're already dead they're already dead...

Tim Robbins

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Morality is subjective so I assume you are just asking my opinion. If is a choice of kill or die, that is up to the individual in question. Where we live, life is simply luxuriant, I can not justify eating meat whatsoever(Even though meat is my favourite food by far, all I ate as a child.), especially as there is fake meat readily available, which in some cases tastes better than the real thing.

There is an element of subjectivity to morality but it is not immune from reason.
We can look at evidence, construct an argument, use logic and arrive at some sort of conclusion. We can look at consequences etc.
We can use philosophical arguments. e.g. Kant's what would happen if everybody does this?

The moral ethical argument for being a Veggie is valid and sound as far as I am concerned.

Cardinal

PDN wrote:

This is interesting. I thought the discussion might get onto vegetarianism. Of course as a Christian this is much simpler for me. If God wanted us to be vegetarians then He wouldn't have made animals out of meat.

I find it interesting that some atheists see it as ethical to eat some animals but not others. For example, I have eaten both dog meat and dolphin steaks yet a friend of mine strongly argued that eating dogs was wrong, not just on sentimental grounds, but ethical grounds. This cannot be an issue of sentinence because I understand that dolphins are considered to be more intelligent than your average mutt.

I have never eaten chimpanzee, but a friend of mine assures me they taste excellent. I don't see any ethical problem with eating a chimp. Then again, I'm not aware that the Bible specifically forbids eating human flesh. So maybe I would agree with Buddha's approach to eating meat - it may be ethically OK to consume human flesh, but killing a person for that purpose would be both unethical and illegal.

Your logic here has a severe flaw. You're assuming that your morals are correct. You say it can't be issue of sentience, because dolphins are sentient and you ate a dolphin. Did you ever consider that eating dolphins is not moral?

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about. Your archaic morals are lagging behind the real world.

I don't mean to propose that I am certain that eating chimps or dolphins is immoral, but I would tend to think that it is. In part due to their sentience.

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Where we live, life is simply luxuriant, I can not justify eating meat whatsoever(Even though meat is my favourite food by far, all I ate as a child.)

Kudos to you then.

I couldn't picture life without meat - I hate vegetables. I know my quality of life would be greatly diminished if I couldn't enjoy a meal. Whether that clouds my mind as to the moral question is another thing.

bluewolf wrote:

if they're already dead they're already dead...

Bluewolf it's really not healthy to eat roadkill...

Tim Robbins

Cardinal wrote:

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about. Your archaic morals are lagging behind the real world.

Sorry for butting in here, but I am going to have stand up for PDN here.
You give out about his logic and then use the above rhetoric:
What is the "real world", why are his morals "archaic"? This is far from a alogical argument Cardinal.

If one is a believer in God, I think one can construct a rational argument for eating animals in that one can use as an axiom, there is something extra special about us, we are created in Gods own image or something like that and construct some ethical argument for it being ok to eat an animal. That axiom is unavailable to me.

I'll let PDN take over

Tar.Aldarion

bluewolf wrote:

I duno, I think ducks and chickens are awfully cute (we keep both, they really are) and while I rarely eat the former and sometimes the latter I do still eat them...
if they're already dead they're already dead...

Again Bluey, as I said to The Atheist, there are of course exceptions to a rule. I know people will say they are different than what I said, if I ate meat I would be the same as you.
The point still stands that a lot of people are like that and would think eating a dog or a cat abhorrent.

Tal.Aldarion is right, my only point is I think it's takes strenght to be someone like Tal.Aldarion on this issue, the argument is clear and rational. Some of us don't have the strength of character to live it. We should be honest and humble about that.

Thank you Tim, it was the hardest thing I have ever done, especially with me hating 99% of food, I practically didn't eat for a few weeks after I made my decision. It made me happy in the end.

Cardinal

Tim Robbins wrote:

Sorry for butting in here, but I am going to have stand up for PDN here.
You give out about his logic and then use the above rhetoric:
What is the "real world", why are his morals "archaic"? This is far from a alogical argument Cardinal.

If one is a believer in God, I think one can construct a rational argument for eating animals in that one can use as an axiom, there is something extra special about us, we are created in Gods own image or something like that and construct some ethical argument for it being ok to eat an animal. That axiom is unavailable to me.

I suppose that would be true enough if god existed. However, the belief in god is not logical and any arguments constructed on that belief are also illogical.

Tar.Aldarion

Tim Robbins wrote:

There is an element of subjectivity to morality but it is not immune from reason.
We can look at evidence, construct an argument, use logic and arrive at some sort of conclusion. We can look at consequences etc.
We can use philosophical arguments. e.g. Kant's what would happen if everybody does this?

The moral ethical argument for being a Veggie is valid and sound as far as I am concerned.

I would be of the opinion that your logic etc are so intertwined with subjectivity that it is really one and the same to you. It all just forms your personality, who you are and then it is you and that opinion that make that decision. We can use logic and rational argument all we want but if we truly feel at heart that something is wrong or right, do you think logic can change our minds?

Kudos to you then.

I couldn't picture life without meat - I hate vegetables. I know my quality of life would be greatly diminished if I couldn't enjoy a meal. Whether that clouds my mind as to the moral question is another thing.

I hate vegetables too, take what you hate and multiply it by a thousand to get me, the pickiest eater there is.
I was of exactly the same opinion of you as a teen and it took years for me to take a step, you ask yourself what you will eat? Will I ever enjoy a meal again? I started to cook and try new foods.
I went for a week only allowed to eat foods I had never eaten before. That was interesting, anyway, I'm just blathering. Thank god I found Quorn.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

I would genuinely like to get some insights from atheists as to how you form a moral code without a belief in God. This is not an argument, so anyone wanting to hurl insults or pick fights should find another thread. Please note that I am not suggesting that atheists lack morality or ethics, I am just curious as to how you reach them.

Let's take the field of medical experimentation. I can understand fully an atheist who believes that it is wrong to conduct any animal experimentation whatsoever. The reasoning that it is wrong to mutilate another living creature, irrespective of any good that may result, certainly requires no belief in God.

I can also understand (while obviously violently opposing) the reasoning of someone like Mengele who experimented on humans. If he saw no essential difference between a Jew and a chimpanzee, then it would be acceptable to him to experiment on either.

Now, I suspect a good proportion of the atheists who post here would, under some conditions, support medical experimentation on animals. I also suspect (and fervently hope!) that the same people would be opposed to medical experimentation on humans. I want to understand why. Is it just a gut feeling? Does one just feel right while the other feels wrong? If human beings are simply just another species of mammal (rather than a category apart, as I believe) then what is the difference?

I would appreciate your responses.

PDN

The answer, which will upset the more sensitive of the religious brigade, is evolution.

It is natural selection that has led to the emotional sensation we have in regards to a "moral code".

Morality can be viewed and is measureably, and emotional reaction based on an individuals ability to empathise with another life form. This is the reason why some people are more "moral" than other, thought, perhaps, it is more correct to say that they are more empathetic.

Being empathetic makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because ofhte mechanism of implied reciprocation (If I am good to you then you will be good to me). We may be able to cognitively set this aside and be cruel by choice but the underlying mechanism remains.

Tim Robbins

Cardinal wrote:

I suppose that would be true enough if god existed. However, the belief in god is not logical and any arguments constructed on that belief are also illogical.

Exactly. PDN is capable of deriving a valid logical argument, with an axiom on lines of God created humans...
but it doesn't mean it is sound argument even if it is logically valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

The answer, which will upset the more sensitive of the religious brigade, is evolution.

It is natural selection that has led to the emotional sensation we have in regards to a "moral code".

Morality can be viewed and is measureably, and emotional reaction based on an individuals ability to empathise with another life form. This is the reason why some people are more "moral" than other, thought, perhaps, it is more correct to say that they are more empathetic.

Being empathetic makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because ofhte mechanism of implied reciprocation (If I am good to you then you will be good to me). We may be able to cognitively set this aside and be cruel by choice but the underlying mechanism remains.

I don't think the idea of an atheist believing in evolution is going to upset anyone who is prepared to post on a Atheist & Agnostic forum. I would be rather disappointed and upset if any of you didn't believe in evolution. But I like the subtle way you use the word "brigade" in a slightly pejorative way to refer to religious people. I must remember that one next time I want to be annoying.

I find the empathy thesis interesting, because it appears to say there is no such thing as morality per se. If Mengele had no empathy towards the gypsy children he experimented on, then would that mean that his actions were not, in fact, immoral?

Being empathetic makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because ofhte mechanism of implied reciprocation (If I am good to you then you will be good to me). We may be able to cognitively set this aside and be cruel by choice but the underlying mechanism remains.

It is extremely unlikely that Mengele, or any of the Nazis, ever imagined a scenario where a gypsy could have enough power to do good or harm to him. After all, they sincerely believed that the Third Reich would last for a thousand years and the gypsies would be wiped out as a race. So, from an evolutionary perspective, Mengele's actions were very moral and designed to further the survival of the fittest (the Aryan race).

Cardinal

Thanks Tim. I wasn't fully aware of the meaning of "sound". A useful addition to my vocabulary.

PDN

Cardinal wrote:

I suppose that would be true enough if god existed. However, the belief in god is not logical and any arguments constructed on that belief are also illogical.

And that, of course, is an entirely different argument that has been gone over many times both here and in the Christianity forum.

The Atheist

The Atheist wrote:

Bluewolf it's really not healthy to eat roadkill...

tarry wrote:

Again Bluey, as I said to The Atheist, there are of course exceptions to a rule. I know people will say they are different than what I said, if I ate meat I would be the same as you.

ok ok I just like mentioning my duckies are you happy now =(

Cardinal

PDN wrote:

I find the empathy thesis interesting, because it appears to say there is no such thing as morality per se. If Mengele had no empathy towards the gypsy children he experimented on, then would that mean that his actions were not, in fact, immoral?

I wouldn't like to rely on empathy to fully explain morality, but you've hit on something important there, i.e. that there is no such thing as morality. I think this is a fairly common misinterpretation of atheistic views on a number of things i.e. that because there is no absolute morality, that there is no morality at all; or that because there is not absolute meaning to the universe, that there is no meaning at all.

I'd argue that this is not the case. These things need to be seen in context, often in a naturalist or humanist context. In my opinion, it is up to us to decide what meaning is, up to us to decide what morality is. I also think that neither concept is reduced in importance by coming from man and not from a god.