|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| What you state so blandly as something everyone ought to know without being told is something that is actually a topic of very heated debate among biologists, and especially sociobiologists (Dawkins, et al). I'm willing to bet you that most examples you'd suggest regarding "socially organized mammals" are examples that someone will provide an alternate explanation for that does not involve giving to another creature (especially one unrelated by heredity) with no possibility of gain in return. |
I'm not sure that I state it so blandly. I'm well aware that there are important and interesting debates on the subject. My own thinking on the subject heavily rips-off Dawkins' concept of the selfish gene. I think the concept of gain or preservation are integral to the biological and evolutionary aspects of compassion. Yet, especially in humans, there remains the possibility that we may cultivate compassion through education in ways that transcend the merely evolutionary aspects of compassion. Yet, I still think you are right in pointing out gain. I think our customary ways of thinking of virtue lead us to prematurely rule out gain or self-gain as somehow morally corrupt, negatively selfish. This is just prejudice.
| Quote: |
| As well, you may need to provide your own definition of compassion and defend it beyond what you have done above, because it is somewhat at odds with the definitions I've seen used by scientists who study living creatures as their livelihood. I have a feeling what you are calling compassion among animals is what a professional animal behaviorist would call a survival strategy designed to maximize the likelihood of an inidividual's DNA pattern being passed on the the next and succeeding generations. |
I think of compassion this way. The social mammal has the ability to project him or herself into another and become that other. That is, the subject becomes the obect, and consequently experiences the objects sufferring. It is a process of identification. It is kind of like when you see some guy getting kicked in the nuts, and you double over though you've not been kicked. You even feel his pain and wish he were free of it. In some cases, when there is true affection for the other, as in the case of a family member, it hurts even more to see them hurt that it would to be hurt directly.
In more compassionate individuals, seeing non-family members hurt hurts, and this can extend eventually to other species. The question, though, is whether this is beneficial. I can see it as beneficial in this way, so far. That, in direct proportion to the extent that be become compassionate for other species, our compassion in general is augmented. Insofar as we are compassionate in general, the society in general will gain from that disposition.
On the other hand, I see that there are cases in which compassion may be detrimental. These are cases in which our compassion short-circuts our reason and prevents us from making tough, though beneficial, choices. This is one reason some of the first attacks on my position--allegator eats gazelle--are a bit frustrating. People are too quick to assume that the vegetarian is the bleeding-heart who cannot reason clearly about the brutal reality which is nature. I have no problem looking at the reality. However, it is by a combination of compassion and reason that I have adopted my position.
As for the scientific evedence, I think we are strongly in agreement on this point. I used the term evidence a bit loosely. I think that scientific evidence has high epistemic standard which shows us a clear path beyond our subjective differences. Yet, what I have learned of human nature is this. Logic alone rarely moves people to change. Therefore, a combination of logic and humanistic rhetoric can help forward well-founded scientific propositions. This was closer to my point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lucas_p wrote: |
What we really need to do is pit you vegetarians against the "You can't bash fat people" fat people (Two distinct and seemingly well-populated groups within this board). I want to see the vegetarians tell the big folk they can't have their hamburgers.  |
I'll tell them on this forum, but never, ever, face to face!
So, here goes: Hey fatties! You're setting the world a-spinnin all a-wobbly! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| I think you are right on here. Preaching morality works only on Sundays. |
I'll say this. You're not like the others in the pet brigade that instantly falls into name calling. We can agree on some things 
I'm going to quit this debate while we're both even money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cool. I enjoyed shootin' it with ya! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rD.NaTas
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Location: changwon
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| vegetarians are losers and meat eaters as well , i eat poo for breakfast |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rD.NaTas wrote: |
| vegetarians are losers and meat eaters as well , i eat poo for breakfast |
Hey guys, I think I've found our solution to the fertilizer problem! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| We've been eating meat sinse the beginning of time, we're designed for it, in fact it's the reason we're still here as a species. The fact that a full vegetarian diet requires suppliments to be completely nutritional tells you it's not natural for us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rD.NaTas
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Location: changwon
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| rD.NaTas wrote: |
| vegetarians are losers and meat eaters as well , i eat poo for breakfast |
Hey guys, I think I've found our solution to the fertilizer problem! |
you fertilize this thread with your illiterate mess |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rD.NaTas wrote: |
| Omkara wrote: |
| rD.NaTas wrote: |
| vegetarians are losers and meat eaters as well , i eat poo for breakfast |
Hey guys, I think I've found our solution to the fertilizer problem! |
you fertilize this thread with your illiterate mess |
Omkara can actually carry on an argument. You just take pot shots at people trying to debate an issue. You're pathetic. I hope you find a good husband in future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| We've been eating meat sinse the beginning of time, we're designed for it, in fact it's the reason we're still here as a species. The fact that a full vegetarian diet requires suppliments to be completely nutritional tells you it's not natural for us. |
Not true. It requires that one re-educates him or herself about diet, but it is not necessary to suppliment the diet.
Yet, if there is a case in which a person needs to eat meat in order to be healthy, then that person has good justification for eating meat. The fact is that most of us do not even know if this applies to us owing to our lack of real knowledge on the subject.
I used to worry about the same point before becoming a vegetarian. I learned that there are many, many protein sources (the one nutrient that so many fear is wanting in a vegetarian diet) which a vegetarian may consume.
In all fairness, I do eat seafood. I did not before I came to Korea, but changed for practical reasons. Nevertheless, when I was in America, I was perfectly healthy without suppliments. I got my protein from nuts, beans, etc.
You are right to go to the concept of necessity when thinking about diet. However, if you should look seriously at the concept, and are willing to accept what you find, you'll be surprised at how much of your diet is not only superfluous, but harmful--to yourself and others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omkara
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And there is one point I'd like to make about "being designed" to eat meat.
Granted, this phrase is rather a matter of habit; but so too are our dietary patterns and justifications.
It is a passive construction, grammatically. It implies an active subject not mentioned in the sentence itself, ie, a designer. Yet, there is no evidence of a designer, presumably the god of Abraham.
I will agree that we evolved to eat meat, among other things. We evolved to be omnivores. The concept that we were "created" to be omnivores has dangerous implications. The thinking runs something like this, "Since we were created to eat meat, we were intended to eat meat. Therefore, we should eat meat."
But if we evolved to eat meat, there is no imperative involved, save that of survival's necessity.
Since if (as the evidence with extraordinary power suggests) we evolved to eat meat, we did so as an adaptation to our environment. Yet, as a consequence of our ability to modify our environment, evolutionary processes have not been able to modify or adapt our systems to the new environment. Hence, old evolutionary mechanisms are active in an environment for which we are not adapted. These evolutionary systems are manifest, for example, in our pleasure responses. We get great pleasure from calorically dense foods. This is a great adaptation when such food sources are scarce. These food sources are now not only not scarce, but abundant, hence we over-eat. Having so much meat available is causing us a major health crisis, as I mentioned before.
In the past, we'd eat meat as a special treat, not for every meal as a primary source of nutrition. Our systems are neither "designed" nor evolved to deal with this. Moreover, the eco-systems to which we have adapted are not evolved to maintain a balance with respect to the extraordinary stresses our blind appetites are putting on them.
Only an evolutionary model can create the necessary understanding by which ethical and rational choice can be made. This is just one, among many reasons, why the mono-theistic world views of the Abrahamic religions are not only indefensible, but, given our present understanding of the global crisis, they morally banckrupt. They cause harm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Even trees scream when they're cut down |
I lol'd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Omkara wrote: |
| In all fairness, I do eat seafood. |
You are not a vegetarian, then. Why did it take you 6 pages and counting before blurting out this confession?
I am not a vegetarian, and even I can tell you are unqualified to attempt to speak for vegetarians, which seems to be what this thread is all about - and I have to say, even from the start it seemed a bit cheeky of you to try to speak for ALL vegetarians and help the rest of us omnivores "understand" you all ... jeeze louise, when I think of all the grief and epithets I've bought for myself for making generalizations about vegetarians, even when I could point to specific times places and people, etc., and here you are speaking for them without having the credentials to do so. Aigo.
| Quote: |
| In more compassionate individuals, seeing non-family members hurt hurts, and this can extend eventually to other species. The question, though, is whether this is beneficial. I can see it as beneficial in this way, so far. That, in direct proportion to the extent that be become compassionate for other species, our compassion in general is augmented. Insofar as we are compassionate in general, the society in general will gain from that disposition. |
Inasmuch as it sounds like the basic thesis of liberalism, I'm bound to concur, for the most part.
However, I'm dubious about whether showing people pictures of critters bellowing in pain in slaughterhouses will change people's habits - hasn't worked on me, so far - or whether it will simply cause people to ask that such places be regulated more carefully than is now the case. Most people are just going to say, yes, yes, death is ugly stuff and that's why I pay other people to be soldiers, policemen, and abattoir workers ...
While we're at it, can you get back and cite some specific instances of compassionate behavior among animals, social or otherwise? Seem to recall that you asserted it as a natural fact, but I tend to side with Dawkins when he says that it doesn't happen, and that what we think of as compassionate behavior is actually selection-enhancement carried over to kinship groups (or, in the case oif a dog that rescues a child, a wrongly-perceived kniship group).
Think back. My question was: why should humans use compassion as a criteria for food choice regarding animals when this is not a criteria that anmials employ themselves? It would seem thatyou are positing a position for humanity apart from nature - even while you speak of
| Quote: |
| We get great pleasure from calorically dense foods. This is a great adaptation when such food sources are scarce. These food sources are now not only not scarce, but abundant, hence we over-eat. Having so much meat available is causing us a major health crisis, as I mentioned before. |
The so-called "crisis" you mention is really due to a matter of choices being available, and the solution is better choices, through education - as you have said - but the choices do not necessarily entail eliminating meat from the diet ... that is what vegetarianism mean, I'm pretty sure. Among the possible choices are a) no meat,as a personal choice for whatever reasons 2) less meat 3) careful attention to the nutritional value of particular meat sources 4) some combination of the above.
| Quote: |
| Only an evolutionary model can create the necessary understanding by which ethical and rational choice can be made. This is just one, among many reasons, why the mono-theistic world views of the Abrahamic religions are not only indefensible, but, given our present understanding of the global crisis, they morally banckrupt. They cause harm. |
Whoa. Dude is asserting that every single religious system ever practiced is morally bankrupt ... and this, after having implied from the get-go he's a vegetarian when he clearly is not.
Well, at least no one can accuse Omkara of lacking cojones or chutzpah ...
By the way, I think you might finally have this quote function licked. High five, bro'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Omkara wrote: |
| In all fairness, I do eat seafood. |
You are not a vegetarian, then. Why did it take you 6 pages and counting before blurting out this confession?
|
(S)HE is a pescatarian. That has to count for something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rD.NaTas
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Location: changwon
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i swear , when i kill spiders they scream also...but i do not hesitate to devour there swollen corpse |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
