Should we eat animals?
This one isnt directly related to this thread, but it is strange. Mike, the headless chicken
Quote:Original post by Edtharan
Instead I came here with question that I wanted answers to, and challenges for people to meet. But I guess that people here are too immature to think in that way. All they seem to be doing is trying to make other people accept their viewpoint (even if it is not the one they are living by).
If being mature and open-minded is dishonest, then the world could really do with a lot more dishonesty.
Actually, there are several people here that have been arguing that we shouldn't eat meat, but they, themselves, do eat meat, and yet no body has called them "Dishonest".
Boo hoo. Would you like some tear-free shampoo?
Quote:
Yes, we have empathy. But apparently it dose not stop people doing bad things to other people (just get into any peak hour traffic).
But is Empathy = Morality?
Morality and empathy are strongly linked. Our moral convictions proceed in large part from our ability to empathize with others. Coincidentally, I think the latest issue of Time has an article about this.
Quote:
But, what I am saying I'm that we don't need to fall back on such logical fallacies (and just because it is false logic does not mean that it is wrong), but that we can justify morality through logic and rational reasoning.
The reason that the "Appeal to Emotion" doesn't work in this context, is because we are trying to reach a consensus (or at least I am), among us as to the ethical implications of eating meat. And to do that we have to have a common ground as to what is ethical or not.
Using empathy to justify morals in this context, because people have different emotional response and capacity for empathy (research psychopaths and corporate psychopaths), then using "Empathy" as a justification will inevitably lead to a disagreement (and arguing and flame wars, etc).
I agree that most morals can and ought to be argued rationally and logically but at some point you may have to make a value judgment of some kind.
Quote:Quote:Original post by trzy
Not only do they have extremely similar biology, the mechanisms for sensing and reacting to pain, as well as their cognitive abilities, are similar enough to where it is reasonable to presume that they are sentient and experience pain. Someone posted an article about this that supports my conclusions.
Did you read my links to the logical fallacies?Quote:Quote from wikipedia
A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole
The Whole = All animals with nervous systems
Part of the Whole = Humans
A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of All animals with nervous systems from the fact that it is true of Humans.
Get it?
The words "reasonable to presume" means you have no proof. No other reason that "I feel it must be true, because I want it to be true".
Oh, I guess all scientific theories are really just elaborate logical fallacies then, because they can't be proven.
My reasoning was a little more thorough than "all animals with nervous systems feel pain because humans do." It would be more correct to summarize my thinking as: animals which have mechanisms for detecting, processing, and acting upon pain, and for sentience, which are similar or identical to those of humans probably feel pain similarly to how we do, as best as we can tell with our current understanding of the biology involved.
We've got two systems with the same or very similar functionality, and with nothing else to go on, it's reasonably to hypothesize that additional functionality which only an individual can actually experience (the conscious experience, feeling pain and experiencing reality), is present there too. It's not proof, but it is evidence enough to argue the ethics of eating meat.
Quote:
Ok, if we are going to resort to that kind of reasoning, then what would you say to someone who said: "Despite the similarities, there is enough differences in the behaviours of many animals and humans, that it is 'reasonable to assume' that they can't be sentient."
Applying what we would expect to cause pain sets of the mechanisms which cause pain in us. Essentially, you're trying to argue that we can't prove that animals aren't just fancy automatons. That's true. I can't prove that you aren't, either.
Quote:
Would you say that Altruism is morally correct? Now, would you consider that to be based on an emotional reason or a biological reasons. Think about it. Survival of the fittest, why is it a benefit to one animal to help another at a cost to themselves? It can't be based on logic an biology can it?
I'm aware of the biological reasons for altruism and empathy. They've arisen because, as social animals, they happen to enhance our survival, as you go on to describe.
Quote:
Therefore the costs of allowing the free loader (the technical term for an individual in a group that does not support the group) to remain in the group far exceeds the cost to an individual to expel them.
From this all current morality and ethics can be derived. No appeal to emotion, no logical fallacies. It is all down to biology and logic.
So why do we not expel people who are not viable from our groups? Why do we care for those who are only a burden?
There is definitely a biological answer to this question. But would you logically come to the same conclusion? Likewise, there is the issue of society having the ability to kill people -- such as in the application of the death penalty. Peoples' moral beliefs on this topic differ sharply, and there is no single logical answer. Both sides can appeal to different reasoning.
Quote:Original post by trzy
Oh, I guess all scientific theories are really just elaborate logical fallacies then, because they can't be proven.
This is more or less correct. With gravity, for instance, we have collected some amount of evidence that it works in a specific way, but there is no real reason to believe that this evidence proves that gravity will work this way in the future.
The fact is, evolution (not to mention life on an individual basis) would be more or less impossible if we couldn't predict the future, so it make sense that a universe with humans in it has patterns from a practical standpoint, but this still gives no reason to believe that our scientific theories will continue to be true.
And when it comes to feeling pain, it's even more ridiculous, because you can't actually prove that any humans except for yourself feel pain. So basically what you have is a completely unfalsifiable assertion that because you have a nervous system and feel pain, everything else with a nervous system feels pain.
You can go on about "mechanisms for detecting, processing, and acting upon pain" all you want, but then you'll have to accept that computers can feel pain, too.
Quote:Original post by cowsarenotevil
You can go on about "mechanisms for detecting, processing, and acting upon pain" all you want, but then you'll have to accept that computers can feel pain, too.
And plants, cowsarenotevil. ;)
Which was my point all along, Thank you Trzy for confirming my point.
Quote:Original post by trzy
Boo hoo. Would you like some tear-free shampoo?
And thnak you for confirming my point about the immaturity on this thread.
Quote:Original post by trzy (Emphasis mine)
I agree that most morals can and ought to be argued rationally and logically but at some point you may have to make a value judgment of some kind.
So your evidence is that you have made a guess that at some point value judgement are needed. Come on, can you even martial a better argument than guessing?
Quote:Original post by trzy
We've got two systems with the same or very similar functionality, and with nothing else to go on, it's reasonably to hypothesize that additional functionality which only an individual can actually experience (the conscious experience, feeling pain and experiencing reality), is present there too. It's not proof, but it is evidence enough to argue the ethics of eating meat.
Ok, lets put this to a test. If there can be two very similar systems, but that a minor difference will change how they both respond to the same inputs, then can we agree that your augment here is invalid. Yes, they might work the same if they are similar, but there is no proof that they do.
Here is my challenge:
Take two identical computers and make one small change to one of them: Cut the positive power line to the motherboard. A simple change, barely noticeable in all the complexity of a computer.
Ok, now we give the same inputs to both, do they produce the same out puts?
Well no. The one with the power line cut will not even accept the inputs, let alone give the same output.
Get it, a small change in a complex system (and not only in complex systems), can give a drastically different output.
If a living system was a linear system, then I could see your point. However, living systems are non linear systems (do some research on it - or at the very least google it and read a couple of the pages that are returned). In non linear systems the "because it is similar and there are only a few differences" argument fails. Small changes in a non linear (aka: complex) system result in big differences in final behaviours.
Read read my earlier post that contains the example of "Conway's Game of Life". Small differences in the initial starting conditions results if vastly different behaviours of the system, even though the rules that it follows are completely deterministic and very simple (there are only 3 rules and most 5th grader could perform them without a problem - are you smarter than a 5th grader?).
Quote:Original post by trzy
Applying what we would expect to cause pain sets of the mechanisms which cause pain in us. Essentially, you're trying to argue that we can't prove that animals aren't just fancy automatons. That's true. I can't prove that you aren't, either.
That is a good point. Think about us on the molecular level? Don't all the molecules that make you up behave deterministically? Or do you believe in the "élan vital", that is some mysterious and supernatural force that turns non living matter into living matter. That there is one set of rules that apply to the molecules of living creatures, and another set that applies to the same kinds of molecules of non living things?
If you break it down into the basic components: Yes. We are all nothing more than automata.
BUT
remember the Cellular Automata that I described? You know "Conway's Game of Life" (I'm sure I have mentioned it a couple of times).
This, at its basic component is an automata (hence the name cellular automata) But, it's higher level activities are not predictable form it's basic components. The higher level behaviours are completely determined by them, not not predictable from them.
Cellular Automata, Neural Networks, Communicative Networks, etc are all examples of non linear system. They are complex and all share the "emergent" properties (that is properties that are determined by but not predictable from) their base level components and behaviours.
Quote:Original post by trzy
So why do we not expel people who are not viable from our groups? Why do we care for those who are only a burden?
Because there is a good biological reason to: Memory.
Before the invention of writing, all knowledge was stored in the minds of people. This knowledge is important to the survival of the group. So it is logical that we would develop a method that encourages us, despite adversity, to keep hold of these walking encyclopaedias. In fact, in this day and age, where there is a vast amount of knowledge stored externally to us, we still place a very high value on people with good memories. It is because such people were advantageous to keep in the group and to be protected.
Yes, it might not be advantageous in all cases, especially in light of today's technologies. But we have evolved to behave in a way to protect and value those that have more knowledge and experience than us.
Quote:Original post by trzy
Likewise, there is the issue of society having the ability to kill people -- such as in the application of the death penalty. Peoples' moral beliefs on this topic differ sharply, and there is no single logical answer. Both sides can appeal to different reasoning.
I have a question here: Are you trying to provide good examples that support my arguments or are these supposed to be against them?
What am I talking about?
Well, these "Moral beliefs" have been passed down through the Appeal to Emotion. I eve covered this exact point of the death penalty.
So I am not surprised that there are different attitudes to it because you can validity nearly any position with logical fallacies (especially the appeal to emotion").
Also, as a moral relativist, I believe that what we call "Morals" and "Ethics" are the result of process (evolution) and can all be explained logically. However, these are non linear processes, and although the rules that underlie these things (physics, biology and logic), the outcomes (the moral rules we agree to) are greatly influenced by the initial conditions (the society and the evolutionary pressures placed on us).
There is "no single logical answer", because the answer is very dependant on the environment (the society - incidentally it is really more more complex: the moral rules feed back into what makes up the society, which then feeds back into the moral rules, and so on...).
Quote:
Original post by Edtharan
"Again, no.
I have stated that I have posted those comments as an argument against the Stimulus/Response argument (which I disagree with).
What I have done is shown that without arbitrary lines in the sand as to what organisms the Stimulus/Response argument is applied to (ie that plants are excluded because they are plants), and use purely the Stimulus/Response definition of pain, then one has to agree that plants also feel pain as they show stimulus/response behaviour to noxious stimuli.
What I have been doing is highlighting that line and then asking whoever agrees with the stimulus/response argument to justify why it is not an arbitrary line.
So far no one has even attempted to justify why that line exists and why it is in the place it is. All I have got so far is: "Because they are plants".
All I have asked is for people to back up their claims.
If you claim that plants can't feel pain, then explain why that does not contradict the evidence."
Your argument assumes that the stimulus/response test should be considered in isolation, or that those who reject plant pain have said that this is the case. Stimulus/response is simply -one in a series- of indicators that scientists use to determine the existence of pain & is meaningless when considered alone. A number of requirements must be satisfied during testing (see the IME criteria I posted).
Noone is arbitrarily applying or not the stimulus/response criteria to plants. It IS applied to plants and they may meet that single criteria. However, as you have said yourself, plants don't meet all of the criteria for pain, the evidence for which increases as each additional requirement is satisfied - the case is cumulative.
Quote:
Original post by Edtharan
"Can you explain why Neurons are the only physiological structure that can carry pain signals? If you can explain why there can be no other physiological structure that can transmit pain signals, then i will concede this point.
Why do you make the requirement that the organisms has to have Neurons (or at least why you agree with this claim)?
In my own exploration of Neural Networks and Complexity in Information Systems, I have found that any Communicating Network performs processes on inputs to that network. Whether it is through neurotransmitters, electrical signals, or even light. It does not matter what it is made of, as long as the network is communicative, then it will process (it might not do anything interesting, but it will process).
Point: Damage to one part of a plant will result in reaction in a remote part of the plant.
Point: If an organism shows a reaction to an event at a remote site on the organism, then some form of communication from the event site to the reaction site must have occurred.
Point: If this communication does not involve a direct connection (eg: a single cell stretches between the sites), then a network of such signals must exist.
So, if a plant (the Accasia tree) when being eaten by an animal (event site) produces Tannins within their leaves that are not eaten (remote reaction site), then there must exist a communication network within the plant for this to occur.
But, any communicating network performs processing on the input (the "noxious" stimulus of the plant being eaten).
Now, not all communicating networks produce interesting behaviour, however, if a plant has these systems (communicating network), then if it can provide the plant with a survival advantage (produce harmful chemicals - tannins - when it is being eaten), then evolution will encourage the development of these systems.
So if a plant has these systems (and chemical signalling between cells has be comprehensively demonstrated in plants), then why, if evolution favours the development of them, do you think that such systems could not do the things I have posted?"
See my previous point. There's little point us debating the existence of "neural pathways" in plants as the criteria you sought to address specifies pathways between receptors sensitive to noxious stimuli and -a brain-. Neurons are a core part of the spinal cord, brain and peripheral nerves in vertebrates.
You may find this interesting:
Naked mole rat:
Quote:
"The skin of naked mole rats lacks a key neurotransmitter called Substance P that is responsible in mammals for sending pain signals to the central nervous system. Therefore, when naked mole rats are cut, scraped or burned, they feel no pain. When injected with Substance P, however, the pain signalling works as it does in other mammals."
Naked mole-rats may resemble hot dogs with teeth, but pain researchers still find them attractive
Substance P is a key neurotransmitter (associated with pain) which does not occur in plants.
Paulcoz.
[Edited by - paulcoz on November 30, 2007 8:03:08 PM]
Quote:"The skin of naked mole rats lacks a key neurotransmitter called Substance P that is responsible in mammals for sending pain signals to the central nervous system. Therefore, when naked mole rats are cut, scraped or burned, they feel no pain. When injected with Substance P, however, the pain signalling works as it does in other mammals."
So it's okay to eat naked mole rats? [wink]
Quote:Original post by EdtharanQuote:Original post by cowsarenotevil
You can go on about "mechanisms for detecting, processing, and acting upon pain" all you want, but then you'll have to accept that computers can feel pain, too.
And plants, cowsarenotevil. ;)
Which was my point all along, Thank you Trzy for confirming my point.
It doesn't prove anything. There's no reason to think computers are sentient right now. There has been no plausible explanation for why they might be so. You're not even trying to argue with science, but with some sort of metaphysical philosophy here. Is it is possible in the strictest sense? Sure. But until you can start to take steps towards forming an explanation as to why, it's irrelevant.
Quote:
Here is my challenge:
Take two identical computers and make one small change to one of them: Cut the positive power line to the motherboard. A simple change, barely noticeable in all the complexity of a computer.
Ok, now we give the same inputs to both, do they produce the same out puts?
Well no. The one with the power line cut will not even accept the inputs, let alone give the same output.
Get it, a small change in a complex system (and not only in complex systems), can give a drastically different output.
That's not a small change. That's a major observable functional change, and it was a pretty stupid example. You know full well that "similar" didn't imply "similar in visual appearance."
Quote:Quote:Original post by trzy
Applying what we would expect to cause pain sets of the mechanisms which cause pain in us. Essentially, you're trying to argue that we can't prove that animals aren't just fancy automatons. That's true. I can't prove that you aren't, either.
That is a good point. Think about us on the molecular level? Don't all the molecules that make you up behave deterministically? Or do you believe in the "élan vital", that is some mysterious and supernatural force that turns non living matter into living matter. That there is one set of rules that apply to the molecules of living creatures, and another set that applies to the same kinds of molecules of non living things?
If you break it down into the basic components: Yes. We are all nothing more than automata.
We don't know this for sure. You have absolutely no proof. Here you're making the same logical fallacy you accused me of making. You presume that because other simple systems we have observed are theorized to be deterministic, that everything else is as well. Not to mention that quantum mechanics has shown that the universe is not deterministic but rather, probabilistic.
I'll also point out that lacking free will does not mean you must lack sentience.
Quote:Quote:Original post by trzy
So why do we not expel people who are not viable from our groups? Why do we care for those who are only a burden?
Because there is a good biological reason to: Memory.
Before the invention of writing, all knowledge was stored in the minds of people. This knowledge is important to the survival of the group. So it is logical that we would develop a method that encourages us, despite adversity, to keep hold of these walking encyclopaedias. In fact, in this day and age, where there is a vast amount of knowledge stored externally to us, we still place a very high value on people with good memories. It is because such people were advantageous to keep in the group and to be protected.
Yes, it might not be advantageous in all cases, especially in light of today's technologies. But we have evolved to behave in a way to protect and value those that have more knowledge and experience than us.
Is this true? Is this why we don't simply put terminally ill people to death? Or why we don't discard those born with severe disabilities?
How do I know your theory is true? It sounds like you've committed the logical fallacy of "completely making things up." You have zero evidence for how these things "evolved." A lot of people propose simplistic explanations for our social behavior based on some completely arbitrary idea of what early man was like, without so much as a shred of evidence.
What if the real reason is that our capacity for empathy developed much earlier in caring for our young? Can you say with certainty you're wrong or right? If you can't, how can you argue that you have a logical basis for which to argue your morals?
Quote:Also, as a moral relativist, I believe that what we call "Morals" and "Ethics" are the result of process (evolution) and can all be explained logically. However, these are non linear processes, and although the rules that underlie these things (physics, biology and logic), the outcomes (the moral rules we agree to) are greatly influenced by the initial conditions (the society and the evolutionary pressures placed on us).
There is "no single logical answer", because the answer is very dependant on the environment (the society - incidentally it is really more more complex: the moral rules feed back into what makes up the society, which then feeds back into the moral rules, and so on...).
Yes, we can explain why morals have come about, but it still leaves room to argue different morals. See BerwynIrish's posts about reducing suffering being a noble goal. That's an arguable basis for a moral or ethical system rooted in empathy, and it's just as valid as any other. It's quite logical to explain, even, because empathy exists for a reason.
Some people lack empathy for animals because they don't believe them to be sentient. I've heard conservative Christians say this. This is arguable as well and could be justified with logic similar to your own, but that doesn't make it any more correct than the opposing point of view, and certainly not any better supported through facts.
Quote:Original post by trzy
It doesn't prove anything. There's no reason to think computers are sentient right now. There has been no plausible explanation for why they might be so. You're not even trying to argue with science, but with some sort of metaphysical philosophy here. Is it is possible in the strictest sense? Sure. But until you can start to take steps towards forming an explanation as to why, it's irrelevant.
Science does not tell you that animals feel pain. Science does not tell you that animals do not feel pain, either. Science allows you, presumably, to deduce the mechanism by which animals (and computers) react to stimuli. Quite frankly, though, these mechanisms are completely irrelevant.
Your entire argument that it's OK to kill robots but not animals rests on the fact that animals respond to stimuli with similar mechanisms, which is ridiculous.
You seem to believe claiming that if you replace neurotransmission in your own brain with something that performs exactly the same processing, you will no longer feel pain. If we discover intelligent life on another planet, but the brains of these life forms are based on different chemicals, is it perfectly OK to eat them? Unless you say yes to this, it would seem that you have to accept that a computer that can perfectly emulate your own brain's function (which is theoretically possible for reasons that I've already stated) is just as conscious as you are.
I know you're referring to computers now, but who is to say what software feels pain and what doesn't?
Quote:Original post by cowsarenotevil
Science does not tell you that animals feel pain. Science does not tell you that animals do not feel pain, either. Science allows you, presumably, to deduce the mechanism by which animals (and computers) react to stimuli. Quite frankly, though, these mechanisms are completely irrelevant.
Science doesn't tell me other people feel pain, either, but is it unreasonable for me to assume that when making a moral argument? It's harder to investigate these questions with our current understanding, certainly, but we must start from somewhere and take into account what we do and do not know about ourselves and biological organisms which our understanding suggests are all related.
Science has been used to investigate whether animals feel pain. As best we can tell, they do. We can't prove they are conscious, but everything else we can observe in humans seems to be there. None of that is present in robots and software. You can argue anything you like with metaphysics but you aren't going to get anywhere in this debate.
Quote:Your entire argument that it's OK to kill robots but not animals rests on the fact that animals respond to stimuli with similar mechanisms, which is ridiculous.
Now you're just spinning in circles. That isn't my entire argument. It's more about empathizing with living things that experience the universe in a way similar to us.
Quote:
You seem to believe claiming that if you replace neurotransmission in your own brain with something that performs exactly the same processing, you will no longer feel pain.
That's not true. I don't know what you will feel. My understanding is that it happens in the brain, so it's quite likely you'll still feel the same thing. Do you have evidence that animals lack this capacity? Why do you assume that they lack it?
Quote:
If we discover intelligent life on another planet, but the brains of these life forms are based on different chemicals, is it perfectly OK to eat them? Unless you say yes to this, it would seem that you have to accept that a computer that can perfectly emulate your own brain's function (which is theoretically possible for reasons that I've already stated) is just as conscious as you are.
I know you're referring to computers now, but who is to say what software feels pain and what doesn't?
Whose to say the sand you tread on doesn't feel pain? Why aren't you living your life to minimize the pain you think software might feel? Now, how are you going to take that argument and extrapolate it to humans? Will you bring up the social contract again?
You're trying to take the argument to an extreme limit where everything breaks down because we just don't know enough. At least with higher life forms, who we believe we are actually related to, there is some basis for reasoning.
Your ability to form moral and ethical standards is going to depend on whether you assume other people, and organisms, are also as "alive" as you are.
Quote:Original post by trzy
Science doesn't tell me other people feel pain, either, but is it unreasonable for me to assume that when making a moral argument?
I don't see why it would be reasonable to make that assumption. It would make evolutionary sense for most people in a society to have this assumption, but that doesn't make it valid.
Quote:It's harder to investigate these questions with our current understanding, certainly, but we must start from somewhere and take into account what we do and do not know about ourselves and biological organisms which our understanding suggests are all related.
None of that will give us the answer.
Quote:Science has been used to investigate whether animals feel pain. As best we can tell, they do. We can't prove they are conscious, but everything else we can observe in humans seems to be there. None of that is present in robots and software. You can argue anything you like with metaphysics but you aren't going to get anywhere in this debate.
Again, pretty much all of the stuff is present in some level or another in software. And science has been used to investigate how animals react to "pain," not whether they feel it. Science can't tell me whether I feel pain, much less animals.
Quote:Now you're just spinning in circles. That isn't my entire argument. It's more about empathizing with living things that experience the universe in a way similar to us.
Which is fairly baseless as far as I can tell.
Quote:That's not true. I don't know what you will feel. My understanding is that it happens in the brain, so it's quite likely you'll still feel the same thing. Do you have evidence that animals lack this capacity? Why do you assume that they lack it?
I don't assume they lack it! I don't assume computers lack it, either, which is what I'm trying to get across yet. You haven't provided any compelling reason that animals feel pain and computers don't.
Quote:Whose to say the sand you tread on doesn't feel pain? Why aren't you living your life to minimize the pain you think software might feel? Now, how are you going to take that argument and extrapolate it to humans? Will you bring up the social contract again?
Why don't you live your life that way?
Quote:You're trying to take the argument to an extreme limit where everything breaks down because we just don't know enough. At least with higher life forms, who we believe we are actually related to, there is some basis for reasoning.
The reason I'm taking it to its logical extreme is to show that, on a philosophical level, there is no "basis for reasoning." You can't prove that animals "feel" in the same way that we do, you can't prove that animals probably feel pain in the same way, and you can't prove that animals are more likely to feel pain in the same way we do than computers.
I'm not denying that your intuitive claims (animals feel pain and computers don't) seems reasonable, but again, there's an evolutionary reason for having this sort of empathy. I'm not compelled to believe that there's a logical one, however.
Quote:Your ability to form moral and ethical standards is going to depend on whether you assume other people, and organisms, are also as "alive" as you are.
Yes.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
