Vegetarianism

Read this again:

Vegetarianism is an ethical system. It holds animal life to be the standard of good. In this context, vegetarianism does not just mean those that don't eat meat. It is limited to those that do it as part of a particular ethical belief. The belief that it is "wrong" to eat animals.

http://objectivism101.com/IOP/Evil_Vegetarianism.html

Post 81

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 3:46pm

I'm through with this juvenile troll-in-training.

Post 82

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 4:10pm

I thought one has to be older than 21 to be qualify for a troll...

Post 83

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 5:52pm

He's working on his Troll degree, Hong. No diploma till he's 21.

Post 84

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 9:01pm

Dustin,

=====================
Claiming that someone will die from not eating animals ("getting B12") in six years is a lie, though. So stop trusting Google!
=====================

You're putting words into my mouth (like Ethan said you were doing). It's true that you'd die, if you went 6 years without B-12 -- but I do recognize that algae (nori) and fortified cereals provide B-12. And, in this regard, I'm not "trusting Google" -- I've reviewed at least 100's of studies, at least 1000's of abstracts, and at least 10's of thousands of peer-reviewed titles.

In short, I don't "trust" Google, I trust my hundreds of hours of reflection on relevant evidence. And, if you had had the time, energy, and inclination to spend hundreds of hours of YOUR lifetime reflecting on scientific evidence -- then I'd expect you to trust that spent effort like I trust mine.

=====================
I some people who have gone more then six years without meat that are alive and well.
=====================

And the reason, of course, is the fortification of inferior human food (ie. fortified grains). But you won't readily admit that, will you, Dustin?

=====================
I'm happier then ever to be a Vegetarian and not someone who trusts whatever is deemed "science" when it comes to nurition, health, and fitness.
=====================

It's not about trust -- it's about noncontradictory integration. Whenever conflicting evidence abounds, there is a truth to be found. This is a subtlety that some minds might miss. Conflicting evidence is something to be explained -- it is NOT a reason to throw up one's hands in despair. Here's an example ...

In rats, the hormone DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone) significantly extends lifespan (it makes them younger longer, giving them an extra 20% of what I call "healthspan"). In humans, this is not the case.

The reason for this discrepancy is that, in rats, blood levels of DHEA are notoriously low -- so that any supplementation with it, really floods the rat's system (making supplemental DHEA act like a youth elixir). In humans, however, DHEA levels aren't so low -- so a little supplementation doesn't go a long way (as it does in rats).

The take-away message then, is to NOT rely on rat-research for insight into human life-extension (or, youth-extension, if you will) -- as the rat has a different background hormone profile than the human does. The discrepancy in outcomes can be explained by the background hormone profiles of the respective species -- and proper avenues of experimentation are illuminated (because we understand the conflicting, interspecies, evidence).

It's through this conflicting data, that we find what's really right for humans. Do you understand this point, Dustin -- this point about explaining empirical data in a way that maximizes expected utility?

Ed

Post 85

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 9:49pm

Dustin, do you see what mentioning vegetarianism on an Objectivist forum will get you? All that, and now you've got Ed to deal with! Well, at least he agrees with you that we should eat more fruits and vegetables! ;-)

Ed, I still think you eat too much meat. A pound a day is too much, because it gives you too much saturated fat and cholesterol. You need to get yourself tested to see if your diet is working for you. As a philosopher once said, there's nothing like a sordid fact to slay a beautiful theory!

As for early man, how long did he live on such a diet? Were there any hominid centenarians? Or were they all gobbled up by other carnivores before they reached middle age?

- Bill

Post 86

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 10:10pm

Good points, my friend, Bill.

I had thought that I had, sufficiently, met them (your points) with the following ...

===========================
Prev Med. 2002 Feb;34(2):119-23.

Evolutionary health promotion: a consideration of common counterarguments.

* Eaton SB,
* Cordain L,
* Lindeberg S.

Departments of Anthropology and Radiology, Emory University, 2887 Howell Mill Road NW, Atlanta, GA 30327, USA. sboydeaton@mindspring.com

The proposal that Late Paleolithic (50,000-10,000 BP) ancestral experience might serve as a model for prevention research and even, if justified by experiment, as a paradigm for health promotion recommendations is sometimes discounted, before critical assessment, because of reservations based on unjustified preconceptions.

Most often such biases involve comparative life expectancy, potential genetic change since agriculture, the heterogeneity of ancestral environments, and/or innate human adaptability.

This paper examines these topics and attempts to show that none of them justifies a priori dismissal of the evolutionary approach to preventive medicine.

Evolutionary health promotion may ultimately be invalidated because of its falsification by experiment or because another theory accords better with known facts, but these commonly held prejudices should not forestall its thoughtful consideration and investigative evaluation. Copyright 2001 American Health Foundation and Elsevier Science (USA).

PMID: 11817904 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
===========================

... but apparently, I was wrong. Time will tell the truth, here.

Ed

Post 87

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 12:23am

Also, early man ate meat that was far leaner than today's fat laden fair. So, unless you get meat that lean, which you can't unless you eat only wild game, you will not be able to follow the "evolutionary diet"; if you try, you'll simply be eating a lot more saturated fat than you should and will be putting yourself at risk of heart disease and cancer.

Saturated fat as well as polyunsaturated fats, such as corn oil and safflower oil, have been implicated in colon cancer. Japanese living in Japan typically have a low incidence of colon cancer, but after living in the U.S. and eating the standard American diet, their rates rise to the level of the average American's.

There is a reason why saturated fat and polyunsaturated fats cause colon cancer. High-fat foods promote the growth of anaerobic bacteria in the large bowel. Fats and bile acids modified by these bacteria form carcinogens. Studies show that people who have high-fat diets -- when compared to others who eat low-fat foods -- have an elevated production of bile as well as increased anaerobic-bacterial activity. (E. L. Wynder and B. S. Reddy, "Metabollic Epidemiiology of Colorectal Cancer," Cancer, 34:801, 1974.)

So, if you eat a lot of meat and consume large quantities of polyunsaturated vegetable oil, as many Americans do, then you might consider changing your diet to one that is lower in fat. Fortunately, there is one form of fat that does not appear to carry this risk: omega-3 fatty acids, found in fish and flaxseed oil.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 8/26, 12:24am)

Post 88

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 7:03am

William Dwyer said:

"I've always argued that if an animal can think and act in terms of principles, then he or she can recognize the principle of rights and choose to respect it. However, I don't think that non-human animals can recognize such an abstract principle, despite the fact that some of them may be able to think on a rudimentary level. And if they cannot grasp such a principle, then the principle doesn't apply to them. "

For your consideration and response, William. I work with scores of children with autism and severe mental retardation who can not grasp the "principle" of "rights." At the same time, they not only are garnered the right to life, but the IDEA grants them the right to an appropriate and fair education. They also have the "right" to not be leashed or confined even when they are violent and aggressive, with the capability of great bodily harm to another human being. Where does your "principle of consistency" play a role in this ? Is there perhaps another explanation ?

And, indeed, animals do have rights. The law books note them. One can be incarcerated for animal cruelty. Animal testing for cosmetics is banned in the UK. In some cases in history, animals have held more rights than women, and such legislation has even been noted as the impetus for feminist uprising. For you to say "humans have rights, animals don't" is merely an individualized perception, once again lacking substance, and honestly, a farce. If you are attempting to offer a deontological insistence that "transcends" the actuality of existence, then I'd say that's a farce as well.

I see quite a few questions and refutations of mine have gone unanswered. I'm sorely disappointed.

Post 89

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 8:13am

For your consideration and response, William. I work with scores of children with autism and severe mental retardation who can not grasp the "principle" of "rights."

Yet they should. If a defect prevents this ability, that in and of itself doesn't expel them from being human.

A dog or rat, on the other hand, can't fall into the realm of "shoulda coulda." They can't grasp that principle either. Ethics are beyond the choices of all animals, except humans.

Defective animals, including humans, are prevented from acting according to their natures.

In a perfect world, sans any defective humans, a dog isn't likely to respect the rights of a cat, nor a cat of a rat, or a bear of a human. It's just not in the nature of those creatures, and never will be.

I'm interested in Bill's ideas on this as well.

Post 90

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 10:06am

The key word is "principle"..... taking defects from a particular class, and attempt to use those as examples to 'equate' with those in general of another class, is violating the principle of the class.... as for the term "rights", what is being spoken here is about "moral rights", not "legal rights", as the latter is nothing but codified decrees which may, or as is oft the case may not, be in line with moral rights... so no - animals, by their nature of not being sapient, do not possess rights, legal privileges notwithstanding...
(Edited by robert malcom on 8/26, 10:10am)

Post 91

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 8:37pm

I wrote, "I've always argued that if an animal can think and act in terms of principles, then he or she can recognize the principle of rights and choose to respect it. However, I don't think that non-human animals can recognize such an abstract principle, despite the fact that some of them may be able to think on a rudimentary level. And if they cannot grasp such a principle, then the principle doesn't apply to them. " Bill Matney replied,

For your consideration and response, William. I work with scores of children with autism and severe mental retardation who can not grasp the "principle" of "rights." At the same time, they not only are garnered the right to life, but the IDEA grants them the right to an appropriate and fair education. They also have the "right" to not be leashed or confined even when they are violent and aggressive, with the capability of great bodily harm to another human being. Where does your "principle of consistency" play a role in this ? Is there perhaps another explanation?

This is a good question, Bill. I don't agree with Teresa's and Robert's answers to it, and don't see any way to argue for the rights of someone who is congenitally incapable of recognizing them. Such a person is in the same position as an animal. He or she has no rights. But it should be recognized that if I were to harm a severely retarded person, then it is the rights of his parents or guardians that I would be violating if such harm were against their wishes, and it almost certainly would be.

Of course, no one in his right mind would want to harm a severely retarded human being, which is why we recoil at the idea of his not having any rights. We feel the same about animals. No normal person wants to see an animal treated cruelly or inhumanely. But I don't see any way to argue that they have rights, as much as I'd like to see such an argument made. What we can do if someone is treating an animal or a mentally retarded person inhumanely is to ostracize him or her. In other words, we can resort to non-violent ways of responding to such behavior by refusing to deal with the perpetrator. Shunning the offender would be an effective way to discourage such behavior. But unless the victim has rights, we cannot forcibly intervene.

And, indeed, animals do have rights. The law books note them. One can be incarcerated for animal cruelty.

They have legal rights, but that's not what we're arguing here. What's at issue here is the rights that a person or animal ought to have, not what any particular legal system says they have.

Animal testing for cosmetics is banned in the UK. In some cases in history, animals have held more rights than women, and such legislation has even been noted as the impetus for feminist uprising. For you to say "humans have rights, animals don't" is merely an individualized perception, once again lacking substance, and honestly, a farce. If you are attempting to offer a deontological insistence that "transcends" the actuality of existence, then I'd say that's a farce as well.

Bill, all you're doing is delivering insults and resorting to name calling. If you have a rational argument for the rights of animals and of the severely retarded, let's hear it. But calling my view a "farce" doesn't do anything to advance the argument or to further understanding. You say that my view is merely individualized perception, lacking substance. Not true. I offered a substantial argument, backed by logically consistent reasons.

I see quite a few questions and refutations of mine have gone unanswered. I'm sorely disappointed.

You're sorely disappointed? So am I, Bill; so am I. What I'd like to see from you is a rational justification for the rights of non-rational animals. Your position consists of nothing more than a reference to legally mandated rights. But that's not good enough for a philosophical justification. What needs to be demonstrated is why they should be legally mandated.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 8/26, 8:41pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 8/26, 8:43pm)

Post 92

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 10:37pm

Bill,

================
Also, early man ate meat that was far leaner than today's fat laden fair. So, unless you get meat that lean, which you can't unless you eat only wild game, you will not be able to follow the "evolutionary diet"; if you try, you'll simply be eating a lot more saturated fat than you should and will be putting yourself at risk of heart disease and cancer.
================

Good point, Bill. One of the healthy changes I've made since talking to you (wondering if YOU'VE made any healthy changes -- since being exposed to my rationally-compelling evidence) -- is to consume more foul, and less beef.

Of course, getting fish oil in the diet, cancels out most of the drawbacks of red meat. But there's that damn 'sialic acid' I mentioned before -- it seems to carry a unique risk; and it seems to coincide with the intake of grain-fed red meat.

As I said before, you can eat chicken until it is coming out of your ears -- and there's no data on earth to show that your health will suffer even a tad for that. But there does appear to be a risk with the consumption of red meat, it's small, but statistically-significant.

Also, with regard to heart disease and cancer (from saturated fat intake) ...

The concern about heart disease has been adequately diminished -- which makes me question your epistemological sincerity, as you continue to ignore the fact that high-saturated fat diets (like the Atkins diet) -- reduce the risk for heart disease.

It's as if you'd rather believe that your decades-old belief has been true all along -- than for it to actually correspond to the facts of reality. This is a little disconcerting, and especially so from the likes of yourself (someone with such background epistemological virtue).

The cancer issue is another story, and it appears that fish oil is the saving grace, again ...

=================================
Cancer Res. 2004 Sep 15;64(18):6797-804.

Chemopreventive n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reprogram genetic signatures during colon cancer initiation and progression in the rat.

* Davidson LA,
* Nguyen DV,
* Hokanson RM,
* Callaway ES,
* Isett RB,
* Turner ND,
* Dougherty ER,
* Wang N,
* Lupton JR,
* Carroll RJ,
* Chapkin RS.

Faculty of Nutrition, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-2471, USA.

... Only the consumption of n-3 PUFA exerted a protective effect at the initiation (DNA adduct formation) and promotional (aberrant crypt foci) stages. Importantly, microarray analysis of colonocyte gene expression profiles discerned fundamental differences among animals treated with n-3 PUFA at both the 12 hours and 10-week time points.

Thus, in addition to demonstrating that dietary fat composition alters the molecular portrait of gene expression profiles in the colonic epithelium at both the initiation and promotional stages of tumor development, these findings indicate that the chemopreventive effect of fish oil is due to the direct action of n-3 PUFA and not to a reduction in the content of n-6 PUFA.
=================================

Recap:
Animal evidence suggests that, as far as the risk of colon cancer goes, the risk-producing omega-6 fats from beef can be effectively countered by a proportionate intake of omega-3 fats from fish -- leaving liberal beef-eaters with no net increase in colon cancer risk.

Also to that end, butyrate (found in high amounts in butter) has shown protective against colon cancer ...

=================================
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2006 Mar;40(3):235-43.

Colonic health: fermentation and short chain fatty acids.

* Wong JM,
* de Souza R,
* Kendall CW,
* Emam A,
* Jenkins DJ.

Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Center, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ont, Canada. julia.wong@utoronto.ca

Butyrate has been studied for its role in nourishing the colonic mucosa and in the prevention of cancer of the colon, by promoting cell differentiation, cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis of transformed colonocytes; inhibiting the enzyme histone deacetylase and decreasing the transformation of primary to secondary bile acids as a result of colonic acidification.

Therefore, a greater increase in SCFA production and potentially a greater delivery of SCFA, specifically butyrate, to the distal colon may result in a protective effect. Butyrate irrigation (enema) has also been suggested in the treatment of colitis.

More human studies are now needed, especially, given the diverse nature of carbohydrate substrates and the SCFA patterns resulting from their fermentation. Short-term and long-term human studies are particularly required on SCFAs in relation to markers of cancer risk. These studies will be key to the success of dietary recommendations to maximize colonic disease prevention.
=================================

... and fatty acids from beef are possibly colono-protective ...

=================================
Br J Nutr. 2006 Feb;95(2):346-52.

Beef conjugated linoleic acid isomers reduce human cancer cell growth even when associated with other beef fatty acids.

* De La Torre A,
* Debiton E,
* Juaneda P,
* Durand D,
* Chardigny JM,
* Barthomeuf C,
* Bauchart D,
* Gruffat D.

INRA, Unite de Recherche sur les Herbivores, Equipe Nutriments et Metabolismes, 63122 Saint Genes-Champanelle, France.

Compared with cells incubated without FA, the number of cancer cells was reduced from 25 to 67 % (P<0.0001) following FA treatment. Antiproliferative effects of CLA mixtures varied in magnitude according to the source of FA, the CLA composition and the cell lines.

CLA mixtures naturally present in beef inhibited the proliferation of human cancer cell lines, a high content in cis-trans isomers allowing the most important antiproliferative effect. Beef total FA exhibited a greater growth-inhibitory activity than their corresponding CLA-enriched fractions.

These results suggested that either beef FA other than beef CLA could possess antiproliferative properties and/or the existence of complementary effects of non-conjugated FA and CLA, which could favour the antiproliferative properties of beef total FA.

PMID: 16469152 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
=================================

So, as far as heart disease and colon cancer go -- there's seems to be no beef with beef (even though much, if not most, PhD's -- and other otherwise smart folks -- have had this notion in their heads for decades).

;-)

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 8/26, 10:40pm)

Post 93

Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 4:14am

This is a good question, Bill. I don't agree with Teresa's and Robert's answers to it, and don't see any way to argue for the rights of someone who is congenitally incapable of recognizing them. Such a person is in the same position as an animal. He or she has no rights. But it should be recognized that if I were to harm a severely retarded person, then it is the rights of his parents or guardians that I would be violating if such harm were against their wishes, and it almost certainly would be.

Why is it you do not see them as having rights? They may be in the same physical position as an animal, but rights do not pertain on a 'case by case' basis, but to the class - in this case, humans, and applied across the board to all humans [or sapients, to be more precise]...

(Edited by robert malcom on 8/27, 4:23am)

(Edited by robert malcom on 8/27, 4:24am)

Post 94

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 7:45am

Ed,

"=====================
I some people who have gone more then six years without meat that are alive and well.
=====================

And the reason, of course, is the fortification of inferior human food (ie. fortified grains)."

I'm not particularly interested in the health tangent of this thread, but I am in general interested in the specific research that denotes the B-12 issue.

I'm also interested in what you mean by "inferior."

Post 95

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 4:25pm

Teresa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Yet they should. If a defect prevents this ability, that in and of itself doesn't expel them from being human. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. By what nature "should" they? The bottom line is that they don't. Can discount a value judgement on one end and validate a value judgement on the other end.

2. What, then, does make them human?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Ethics are beyond the choices of all animals, except humans. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are not "ethics" merely a form of behavioral responses, predicated largely by context , cultural consideration, and individual motivation?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"In a perfect world, sans any defective humans, a dog isn't likely to respect the rights of a cat, nor a cat of a rat, or a bear of a human. It's just not in the nature of those creatures, and never will be. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting word choice....."perfect." I wonder if your vision of a perfect world and Robert's vision, or Bill's vision would look the same. I kind of doubt that.

We don't live in a "perfect" world. There are no Platonic actualities. There is no "your vision" of the "perfect world" for me to surrender to. We live in world where autism is reaching epidemic proportions; where medical technology is allowing humans all along the spectrum of consciousness to live well beyond what they could have. We are reaching a point where the "rights" of the disabled are beginning to impede on the "rights" of the able-bodied, and I can guarantee you the battles are going to begin. I say this as someone who advocates for and works with these children. I am disinterested in "shoulda, couldas." I'm also disinterested in whether or not they offer me the same consideration I offer them.

Robert,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"The key word is "principle"..... taking defects from a particular class, and attempt to use those as examples to 'equate' with those in general of another class, is violating the principle of the class.... as for the term "rights", what is being spoken here is about "moral rights", not "legal rights", as the latter is nothing but codified decrees which may, or as is oft the case may not, be in line with moral rights... so no - animals, by their nature of not being sapient, do not possess rights, legal privileges notwithstanding..."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Any particular reason you utilize the word "class" instead of "species?"
Got absent referent?

What is this "principle" of humanity. Where is your essence.... this so-called "natural state" that each of you either imply or refer to....the etiology of "moral rights".....you are not substantiating it. You are merely offering the same circular speciesist (classist) argument that has been offered for ages. It isn't a refutation....and, by the way, Singer was refuted, but it wasn't by who you think it was.

Post 96

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 6:49pm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
William Dwyer said:

"We respect the rights of others, because we want others to respect ours, and we can't demand that they do so, if we're not willing to respect their rights. We cannot say that the principle of consistency demands that we respect the rights of animals, if we want animals to respect ours. Animals aren't capable of recognizing the principle in the first place. So the consistency argument doesn't apply to animals in the same way that it applies to other human beings. "
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I'd like to see you address this specifically in regards to my previous post, as well as respond to my previous concerns, William. How does "consistency" play a role in "rights consideration" when the continuum of intellectual/mental capacity is scientifically demonstrated as inconsistent amongst humanity ?

Furthermore, as I understand it, the "principle of consistency," which is probably more formally known as the 'law of non-contradiction,' does not apply in this case regardless. It is not an acknowledgement of the need for reciprocity in order to mandate a consideration of any sort. If the argument for "consistency" relates to maintaining a consistent regard for the human-animal species, then that's something entirely different.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, because cruelty to animals has an adverse affect on human sensibilities. It's distressing to see an animal suffer, and it's not in any rational person's self-interest to witness or entertain it. However, there are some good reasons for sacrificing animals: food, clothing and medical experimentation. If it means finding a cure for a disease, it is better to experiment on animals than to do so on other human beings. But the experimentation should always be done humanely. The same is true in sacrificing animals for food and clothing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

While I appreciate your "should be done humanely" qualification, I must question whether or not the way things are actually done is humane. Are you familiar with factory farming practices in regards to food, fur, leather, and animal experimentation? Do you partake in food or clothing consumption that is created through these practices?

Even if we are to ONLY consider the surface "human" aspect of this process....even if you don't carry out the task, someone does. The turnover rates of slaughterhouse employees are 75% to 100% per year. While I can admit that there may be some other factors involved in such a high turnover rate, I believe we may agree that the task is, as you say, "dehumanizing." And why is that? You can not just assume that such is done in a humane fashion without observing the process in full for yourself. The actuality of sentience becomes concretized in the midst of its experience. There is no absent-referent, no semantic "sapiency" reacharound, no disregard for Hume's guillotine.....and I applaud you for being the first to at least imply an acknowledgement of such.

regards,
Bill

Post 97

Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 2:09am

William Dwyer said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"This is a good question, Bill. I don't agree with Teresa's and Robert's answers to it, and don't see any way to argue for the rights of someone who is congenitally incapable of recognizing them. Such a person is in the same position as an animal. He or she has no rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bill, I honestly do appreciate your consistency in this instance. I believe we're getting somewhere. Since your viewpoint is separated from that of Robert's or Teresa's, it appears that the "objective truth" has some synthesizing to undergo.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But it should be recognized that if I were to harm a severely retarded person, then it is the rights of his parents or guardians that I would be violating if such harm were against their wishes, and it almost certainly would be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Which brings us to the next point, and I again applaud you for acknowledging it.

Exactly what intrinsic right is being violated in this case? What if there is no parent or guardian? What if it is the parent of guardian who is doing the harming, as is unfortunately much more commonplace than we may desire to know about ?

Is this about "rights," or is it about relationships? Is it about both? In any case, how so?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course, no one in his right mind would want to harm a severely retarded human being, which is why we recoil at the idea of his not having any rights. We feel the same about animals. No normal person wants to see an animal treated cruelly or inhumanely.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, if a non-human animal is treated cruelly or inhumanely for "our" meal, and "we" don't witness it, did it actually occur? Do "we" maintain "our" normalcy due to ignorance of the occurrence? Can "we" partake in such a system knowing that someone is having to go against their "right mind" in order to offer "us" the resulting product?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But I don't see any way to argue that they have rights, as much as I'd like to see such an argument made. What we can do if someone is treating an animal or a mentally retarded person inhumanely is to ostracize him or her. In other words, we can resort to non-violent ways of responding to such behavior by refusing to deal with the perpetrator. Shunning the offender would be an effective way to discourage such behavior. But unless the victim has rights, we cannot forcibly intervene."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Concerning your proposal for behavior modification, I can appreciate the general sentiment.....it's much more complicated than just that, I believe.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Bill, all you're doing is delivering insults and resorting to name calling. If you have a rational argument for the rights of animals and of the severely retarded, let's hear it. But calling my view a "farce" doesn't do anything to advance the argument or to further understanding. You say that my view is merely individualized perception, lacking substance. Not true. I offered a substantial argument, backed by logically consistent reasons."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Honestly, Bill, if you feel that me questioning your "logically consistent reasons," and calling them a farce is an ad hominem attack, then I'd say this thread is chock full of such, and at much greater expense than what I've "hurled" at you. There is a difference between polemics and trolling.

So, let's go back to this....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They have legal rights, but that's not what we're arguing here. What's at issue here is the rights that a person or animal ought to have, not what any particular legal system says they have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I appreciate the clarification, as such was never noted as "intrinsic rights," or any other term to that effect. For me, discussing this issue ultimately leads to the litmus test that creates this "ought"......what continues to exist as an individualized perception, an argued and disagreed upon value judgement....not an intrinsic quality. With this in mind, I still feel entirely comfortable questioning "a deontological insistence that 'transcends' the actuality of existence."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What I'd like to see from you is a rational justification for the rights of non-rational animals. Your position consists of nothing more than a reference to legally mandated rights. But that's not good enough for a philosophical justification. What needs to be demonstrated is why they should be legally mandated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As I've noted once before, my position consists of questioning the boundaries of justification for animal cruelty on many levels of actual existence, not merely "defending animal rights" within the quasi-erudite boundaries of one philosophical framework. My position has not mandated, and does not mandate that I pander to this framework. I apologize if that disappoints you. If you personally wish to understand the philosophical justifications of "animal rights," then you can read the canon that I have already offered in that arena...Animal Liberation and other publications by Peter Singer, whom may be at odds with your objectivist leanings, due to its utilitarian nature, and The Case for Animal Rights and Defending Animal Rights by Tom Regan, who tends to work within an "intrinsic rights" framework. They both have also edited books which delineate the, at the time, rebuttals and counter-rebuttals to the arguments. I'll even make a deal with you....you take on some of this material, and I'll engage one of Rand's books of philosophy. We can then see what kind of bridges are built.....or burnt....in the process. Just let me know.

Post 98

Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 8:14am

I agree with Robert here:

Why is it you do not see them as having rights? They may be in the same physical position as an animal, but rights do not pertain on a 'case by case' basis, but to the class - in this case, humans, and applied across the board to all humans [or sapients, to be more precise]...

Bill Matney asked, in response to my conclusion that imperfection does not reduce, or set aside the "class" [metaphysically] (good argument, Robert):

1. By what nature "should" they? The bottom line is that they don't. Can discount a value judgement on one end and validate a value judgement on the other end.

2. What, then, does make them human?

The real bottom line is that they "should," not that they "don't." A defective human being may act as less than a fully functioning one, but it still acts according to it's nature as a human being. Such individuals can't sprout wings and fly, for example, or develop gills to breath underwater.

Many, if not most, human beings afflicted with defects which affect the rational faculties clearly still work to attain values. My 50 year old brother in law is mentally retarded, but can write his name, and loves to listen to CD's. He loves to be read to, and loves to "shop." He had a job in a sheltered shop and enjoyed making money on his own. He understands stealing is wrong because he doesn't like it when his property is stolen. Even he has an "ethic."

A defective rat is still a rat, living the life of a rat as best it can, which doesn't include value choices, or ethics.

Are not "ethics" merely a form of behavioral responses, predicated largely by context , cultural consideration, and individual motivation?

No. Ethics are a set of principles that help to guide choices. A rat isn't guided by a code of ethics. It's guided by a given environment and perceptions to that environment, and hardwired responses to those perceptions, which are outside of a rat's choice.

Interesting word choice....."perfect." I wonder if your vision of a perfect world and Robert's vision, or Bill's vision would look the same. I kind of doubt that.

So what? I'm pretty sure we'd all agree needless suffering would be excluded in a "perfect world." We'd all agree that the initiation of force would be excluded. Etc., etc.

We don't live in a "perfect" world. There are no Platonic actualities. There is no "your vision" of the "perfect world" for me to surrender to. We live in world where autism is reaching epidemic proportions; where medical technology is allowing humans all along the spectrum of consciousness to live well beyond what they could have. We are reaching a point where the "rights" of the disabled are beginning to impede on the "rights" of the able-bodied, and I can guarantee you the battles are going to begin. I say this as someone who advocates for and works with these children. I am disinterested in "shoulda, couldas."

Clearly. And that's too bad, because you're living in a concrete world. There are no wings to your vision. You'll never expect anything greater from those with imperfections, or from a world which may find ways to over come them. How sad. You'll take a limitation as just that, a limitation, and never work for anything more. Very sad.

I'm also disinterested in whether or not they offer me the same consideration I offer them.

Then you're disinterested in human life, and have little to offer it.

I apologize. I thought I was offering a metaphysical example, not a concrete one. It was an attempt to illuminate a "bigger picture," which appears to have slipped by, so I'll say it again without the "perfect" qualification:

Bill Dwyer correctly identified that rights are principles that must be grasped in order to be applied and reciprocated. Animals have no ability to grasp "principles," let alone reciprocate them. Thus, a bear will never reciprocate the rights of a man, or a cat of a rat.

To which you were quick to offer Bill imperfections present in a microscopic percentage of humans as some kind of example analogy, a standard, which must apply to animals in terms of rights, which is a stretch, to say the least. A healthy rat isn't even close to a severely retarded human being, who still has some ability to choose and acquire values.

Standards are made by the best, not the worst examples of any given entity. I personally don't judge the value of anything by the least of it's kind.

Post 99

Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 8:31am