h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

><>
Yes, I am one of them. So? Eating meat is not murder, IMHO.<

My point exactly. I place the same value on *all* life, as opposed to picking and choosing. IMHO, eating meat *is* murder. Also IMHO, terminating an early pregnancy is *not*. Nor is refusing a cesarian section. Nor is opting not to give birth to a child when to do so could (or would) seriously jeapordize your own life or health. Nor is choosing to show mercy to someone who could spend their entire life in agonizing pain.

Now I think we can begin to see where the other person is coming from!

How can eating meat be murder?

Regardless of whether you believe killing an animal is murder or not, the deed has already been done. Eating it is simply consuming the dead flesh -- it has already had the life removed from it.

Psychocandy, I didn't mean to imply that I don't care about animals at all, and I did seem to say that, so I apologise. It's just that I really can't get my head arund animal rights people like Peter Singer who seem to say that animals are more important than people...
Really, I have always laughed a bit at the 'meat is murder' slogan. *All* life? There's enough to do safe-guarding rhe lives of people, and as I said, I am against both war and capital punishment as well. It's not a matter of 'oh, animals don't have souls', I don't know whether they do or not, I've come across at least one theologian who thinks they might do. An extreme anmal rrightist would say only vegans are on safe moral ground. I've known vegans and vegetarians who have forced their dogs to adopt a vegetarian diet, against the animals nature, and one actually killed her dog by making it live on rice! (Silly cow, was my incredulous response.)
We're having a debate about euthanasia in NZ right now, and as I stated on a thread about it, I would insist on a DNR order for myself - but I think it's a bit sad when we assume that someone is in agonising pain, or would be, and decide to bump them off, because *we* can't handle it!
(Disclaimer - Note to all - the last line of this posting is *not* aimed at the experience of anyone here, and is a comment on the euthanasia discussion going on here.)

Following that logic, one could condone, or even advocate, cannabalism. They're already dead, right? If you've no problem eating the flesh of a once living creature, then why any taboos at all?

I'll not waylay this discussion into one on my own beliefs on the value of life, though. That would be terribly inconsiderate of me. Perhaps I can find another place for that...

A thousand apologies if I've steered this off track

>We're having a debate about euthanasia in NZ right now, and as I stated on a thread about it, I would insist on a DNR order for myself - but I think it's a bit sad when we assume that someone is in agonising pain, or would be, and decide to bump them off, because *we* can't handle it!
(Disclaimer - Note to all - the last line of this posting is *not* aimed at the experience of anyone here, and is a comment on the euthanasia discussion going on here.)<

I can respect that position, even if I don't agree with it!

I see it from a slightly different angle- I think it's sad when we see someone in agonizing pain (or assume they are, won't get into semantic arguments) and choose to prolong it because it would hurt too much to let them go.

Thanks for explaining that you didn't mean you "don't care" in the way that I took it. I appreciate your taking the time to explain.

I think that perhaps we see "souls" a bit differently because we do not share the same "religious" faith. I do not think of "souls" as individual entities, but rather as part of a collective "unconscious". Which is why I wouldn't be too torn about preventing a "soul" from being born into, or continuing to live, a life of agony or what have you- that same "soul" will simply be reborn later, and hopefully with a better outlook.

And I cannot think of human life as having more inherent worth than any other. I'm just not wired that way. But I'll grant that perhaps you do, Della, and likely have good reason for doing so. As far as people go, you seem like one of the better specimens, whether we agree about certain things or not.

Incidentally, I've read of your own recent loss, Della, and would like to offer my condolences. I know too well how hard it is to lose a loved one, and you and your family are in my prayers.

>>>We're having a debate about euthanasia in NZ right now, and as I stated on a thread about it, I would insist on a DNR order for myself - but I think it's a bit sad when we assume that someone is in agonising pain, or would be, and decide to bump them off, because *we* can't handle it!<<<

Dell, this is not the motivating factor for proponents of euthanasia legislation. The point of the legislation is to give people who are terminally ill a choice (that word again) about whether to die naturally or to end their live intentionally.

I do agree that if such legislation is made that there need to be very stringent safeguards to prevent people, especially the elderly, from being pressured either directly or via their own concsciences to end their lives so that *others* don't suffer.


Psychocandy I don't think you're taking us offtrack - it's all part of the wider debate. I'm not sure that I would say eating meat is murder. However I also wouldn't say having an abortion is murder either even though it also involves the intentional killing of a (potential?) life.



btw Peter Singer isn't an 'animal rights activist' in the sense one would usually use that term. He's currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values. I agree that alot of his work has been looking at animals and ethics.


There's some very interesting backlog here.

Az I saw those documentary links. It'll be interesting to see what kind of response whe gets.

I wanted to say thanks too to the person (sorry I don't remember who it was now) who did that half hours research on maternal death statistics. That really helped with perpective

<< and would like to offer my condolences. I know too well how hard it is to lose a loved one, and you and your family are in my prayers. >>
Thank you so much, I really appreciate that...

I think you've missed my point.

Eating meat does not imply murder for (at least) two reasons:

1) the person eating the meat is not necessarily the killer
2) the animal may have died of natural causes

I was describing the error of this statement, not examining the ethics involved in the issue.

<< The point of the legislation is to give people who are terminally ill a choice (that word again) about whether to die naturally or to end their live intentionally.>>
I agree that's a large part (but not all of it.) I am not 100% sure of the safety of such legislation, the safeguards would have to be something fierce to stop abuse. There was an interesting article in the Sunday Star-Times about hospices and palliative care. Did you see it? What it said, basically, was that with better palliative care, better pain management and both more widely available, perhaps more people whould realise that they don't have to make such a choice - a natural death, or an unnatural one, which reminds me horribly or what vets do to, or for, for instance, poodles with skin cancer. (I'm thinking of a friend's dog here...)

But to address your point .. sometimes cannibalism can be a positive thing.

For example, that rubgy team whose plane crashed on the mountains ended up eating their already-dead friends in order to survive. I'd say that this was the right thing to do, given the circumstances.

On the other hand, that whole thing recently with that German guy who ate his lover is a bit more ambiguous. I'm not sure what to make of that, given that it was a mutually consensual act. Probably okay, though very bizarre.

milchflasche, I get your point. In law it is possble to be found guilty of murder even if one didn't physically commit the act oneself.

I agree about the possibility of an animal having died of natural causes. I knew someone once, a Taoist, who only ate meat if it came from an animal that died by accident eg got run over.

However most animals that get used by human's are not only killed intentionally, they are also bred to be killed and used.


With the rugby team in the Andes there were also people who refrained from cannibalism on princicple and died. There's that choice word again. I don't have a problem with cannibalsim in situations like that for those whom choose it. I agree that the german example was bizaare. I hope the murder charge sticks, as I don't believe that you should be able to consent to someone else killing you for pleasure.


Della, I missed the Sunday Time article - it sounds interesting. I agree totally that if more palliative care was available less people would choose euthanasia if it were available. I also think that dying naturally is possibly preferable in terms of the soul and that our culture not only has an aversion to death, it also has an aversion to the process of dying that is very unhealthy. The buddhists have alot to teach us about this, where they actually prepare spiritually and psychologically for the process of dying.

I would still probably support the individual's right to choose though. And even increasing availability of hospice and palliative care is not going to adequately address the issue of pain for all people. There is pain that it's not possible to control or manage.

The euthanasia people haven't convinced me yet that adequate safeguards would be put in place. But I suspect that eventually they will be.

<>

In a banned four-minute propoganda film made by anti-abortionists they showed 23 images of dead foetuses, many repeated.

In the pro-choice docutmentary, which is half and hour long, they are showing 4 images. Anti-abortionist who use these images as shock tactics have often accused pro-choicers of avoiding the harsh reality of terminations. According to the film-maker, she wanted to show the reality in order to remove the secrecy surrounding terminations. She wanted to do this in a clear and unsensational manner.

az

Having watched the two people who raised me die slow and painful deaths while their children andloved ones sttod around helpless I know what Id choose.

My gran and Grandad were hard working people who always did for themselves and others. Aswell as adopting me they adopted my nans younger sisters and brother when her mother died. At one time there were fifteen peolpe in a foour bedroomed house, some of those werent even family just waifs and strays from the area. Sunday dinner would often involve feeding up to twenty in rotation.

Thats why When they were ill both with cancer roughtly eight years apart there was no shortage of visitors and people willing to care for them, but I knew the tears were not just of gratitude or pain. They were people who never wanted to burden or rely on others.

I dont like the idea of wasting resources on preventing the invevitable when I have nothing to look forward to but pain and the loss of what little dignity I have. Life is fun but way overated.

MEAT IS MURDER:

1. Animals suffer while they are growing because they are kept in unnatural and sometimes inhumane conditions. They are kept in low level illness and the anti-biotics they are filled with give rise to the increased numbers of anti-biotic resistant viruses that are killing more and more people.

2. When the animal reaches an optimal weight it is forced in to a pen and killed, in an entirely pre-meditated way.

3. Eating meat increases the risk of death due to cancer, heart disease and other conditions related to obesity.

4. Meat production is inefficient. People are dying of starvation while those who can afford it use their financial power to prop up an industry that denies food to those who need it most.


Even if you cant give up it is well worth cutting back and perfectly good vegetarian pet foods are available.

one love

What sort of life is to be valued, and what isn't? Buddhist mindfulness only gets us so far . I don't even kill spiders if I don't have to, and yet I can't honestly say it's wrong to kill another human. What kind of life is important? Sentient? Any old thing that is alive? Why? Do we even know what these words mean? Even something as reasonable as pragmatism would indicate to me that out of fear for the well-being of the planet, that humans should be annihilated altogether. And what is the difference between 'natural' death and premeditated death? The element of personal free-will? As clueless a person as I am with regards to ethics, I still watch those abortion 'shock' videos and cry my little head off. However, emotion is not necessarily a reliable moral indicator - more an indicator of the quirk it is that humans have morals in the first place.

Meat is Murder?

1. This is a farming and husbandry issue. Animals can and frequently are kept in humane, comfortable circumstances with the only use of antibiotices restricted to veterinary care. The meat costs more but many people are prepared to pay more these days.

2. Animals are bred for the purpose of eating them. There would be very few, perhaps no, cows or pigs on the planet if we did not breed them to eat.

3. Eating too much of anything increases the risks associated with obesity. Meat is not the culprit: indeed protein suppresses appetite whereas foods high in carbohydrates do not, this is why the Atkins diet is so successful. Meatt is however highly nutritious and it is arguable that the availability of meat in our diet enabled us to move from subsistence farming to our advanced civilization.

4. Producing nutrition and calories is less efficient by means of animals than by means of crops on an acre by acre comparison. This is not however a fair comparison as animals can survive in places where crops simply cannot be grown. If the world pooled its food production and concentrated solely on crops, everyone could be adequately fed but the food would have to be moved from places where it could be grown to those where it could not. This global approach is simply not going to happen. It is not an argument to eliminate animals as food.

Pets should be fed a diet which closely matches that which they evolved to eat. There are more pets than just dogs and cats.

one all.

F

<>

I think we have talked about this earlier in the thread, but is there any way of proving when a foetus becomes sentient?

az

>> "I think we have talked about this earlier in the thread, but is there any way of proving when a foetus becomes sentient?"

If someone believes in an immaterial soul distinct from the body, they may view sentience as present from conception, maybe in some kind of limbo waiting for a brain to inhabit.

One materialist viewpoint is that sentience is a process happening to a functioning (human?) brain of adequate complexity, development, and damage-free condition. In that case, it isn't hard to find some developmental stage before which it can be generally agreed that sentience certainly isn't present, but where the line is drawn depends largely on how much margin for error different people are happy with, and what kind of computational qualities are taken as required for sentience.

What is the measure of sentience of someone who is severely mentally impaired?

Della mentioned earlier the achievements & quality of life of some severely physically disabled people. But how do you gauge the quality of life for someone who barely has sufficient brain function to keep their body ticking over? Isn't that what we're talking about in some cases?

I was asking about sentience in a foetus, not about children with disablilities, just to see if there was a definite point when the foetus became conscious and whether this might make a difference in the 'potential human' argument.

az

What I was trying (not very well) to say was that, leaving the issue of the soul on one side, it is possible to define a point before which sentience is cleary absent, given an adequate definition of sentience.
If you consider sentience to be some kind of self-awareness, of a level rare or absent in animals, then a foetus can probably get to quite an advanced stage before being declared sentient, if it's simple reaction to pain in terms of stress hormones, then an earlier stage is more applicable.
By a lowest-common denominator approach, it is easy to pick a point before which sentience is absent, as defined by whatever *biological* measures one wishes to apply. (If one considers humans miraculous, and sentience a divine gift, one may well disagree with such an approach.)

What *isn't* easy is to precisely define the point when sentience emerges, even for an individual, let alone feotuses in general, but since a margin for error is needed anyway for time-based legal limits, such lack of precision isn't necessarily a huge problem if sufficient margins are adopted.