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

Oh, and I would also like to apologize in advance in case I don't get back online before Monday. I've got a business lunch in an hour and a ton of paperwork to process for month end today, so I may have to do more actual work than usual today.

>>No you are not morally perfect. Banging a few pounds off to Oxfam is like sticking a plaster on a Volcano.

First of all, my only coherent approach to the inference that my involvement with Oxfam ends with banging off a few pounds rhymes with 'duck cough'. But don't worry. You've repeatedly made it clear that your horse has longer legs than anyone else's.

>>
"Saving human life *is* morally important. "

>>In the spirit of the devils' advocate that you so like to play - Why?

And that is, indeed, the question. My answer is, as I've stated, that in a morally neutral universe, morality is a code we construct to help one another get through life. I'm completely open about that. We're in life for us, not for bunnies.

It goes without saying that, within this code, raping the planet to the point where it became unsustainable would be an immoral act. But not because of the planet itself of its other animal or plant inhabitants, but because we need it to survive.

Changing tack.

Let's agree that the alleviation of all suffering, human or animal, is what defines morality. (Have I got this right? I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.)

Does it follow that we have a human duty to alleviate animal suffering?

(oops let me tack back before we go with that one)

PC:
>>Would you find it equally moral to save human lives at the expense of other human lives? If so, why not?

Let me reformulate that one. Would I send an army into Nazi Germany in the sure knowledge that people would be killed on both sides? Hell, yes!

Are you as opposed to conscientious objectors as to those who wish to promote animal welfare? Serious question- no smart assness intended.

I'm not a pacifist myself, obviously. I'm not going to make a definitive statement that all conscientious objectors are wrong. But in some circumstances, I feel that they are somewhere between moral idiots and a waste of space. By not intervening they may salve their own consciences - but they may be the only winners.

Would it have been noble of the inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto so say "No. I won't fight back."?

<>

Don't know about that.
What I'm reasonably certain of is I can't see causing animal suffering when we have no need to as justifiable.

Given famine or plague I'm prepared to accept food aid including meat or animal experimentation as a short term expedient (I distrust moral absolutes. There are often situations that neccessitate compromise) but our long term aim should be to reduce animal and human suffering. Thats not giving a special place to either.

>>What I'm reasonably certain of is I can't see causing animal suffering when we have no need to as justifiable.

OK - so the motivation behind the morality is the feeling of discomfort it gives you?

Possibly. It doesn't seem right to me. If thats so it applies equally to all moral issues, not just this one.

Which, I'm afraid, gets us back to the 'homosexuality doesn't seem right to me' idea.

I hear what you're saying, and you're obviously sincere. However...observably different people have different levels of tolerance for animal suffering and different definitions of what is justifiable for what benefit. So...on what basis can we say:
>>our long term aim should be to reduce animal and human suffering.

I can think of a pragmatic argument for humans (civilisation, etc.) - but what argument for animals would convince a carnivore?

One other thought...

Our feelings of unease about animal suffering are about the effect on us, not on the animal, yes? That's why we don't mind so much if a leopard gores a zebra because we can justify to ourselves that it was nothing to do with us.

(Not a criticism, just an observation)

>Our feelings of unease about animal suffering are about the effect on us, not on the animal, yes? That's why we don't mind so much if a leopard gores a zebra because we can justify to ourselves that it was nothing to do with us.<

For me, it's not about the effect on "us", it's about the effect on the animal. The fact that eating meat isn't good for us is just a bonus.

The reason I don't mind so much when a leopard gores a zebra is that leopards are truly carnivores and *cannot survive* without eating meat. Humans do not *need* to consume flesh to survive, so it becomes an issue of "how much suffering can we justify causing", which in an ideal world would be none, IMO.

If human populations continued to explode, and all of the animals in the world were wiped out, would it be moral, in your opinion, for so-called "carniverous" humans to consume the flesh of other humans? I personally see no moral difference, per se, between eating beef, eating dog, or eating Soylent Green. It comes down to societal acceptability, of course. I personally find the idea of eating people just as abhorrent as eating any other kind of meat (but we've already established that a personal sense of right/wrong is of no relevance). Apparently, however, some civilizations accept (or have in the past) cannibalism, because of the lack of other foodstuffs. What's the moral difference? Is it because their society is different that it's acceptable to us? Not being a smart arse- seriously wondering.

Good point
In some areas protein rich foods were in short supply so cannibalism was acceptable
In societies where it occured a moral code grew up about when it was acceptable to eat people, usually either as part of funeral rites or because they were your enemies

Ed, you seem to be arguing that morality should be based on whats good for humanity as a whole. If it were proven that slavery or a caste system or whatever worked best for society (although obviously not for the individual) would you find it acceptable?

Hi Eddie

Firstly - Leopards do not 'gore' Zebra, unless you know of a Leopard with horns? Sorry but that one has been banging my pedant button for some time now. Leopards actually strangle their prey, sometime so effectively they also break the neck.

That said this Leopard and Zebra analogy doesn't hold any water whatsoever. You keep saying what amounts to why should we show a moral reaction to the suffering of animals when they don't show the same response to each other?

The difference is that at this stage of evolution we are capable of such a response and they are not, at least in the predator-prey relationship. A Leopard is quite capable of great tenderness towards its partner and its young.

By our evolutionary ascent to dominance we have become the only animal on the planet capable of being truly responsible for our global actions and misdeeds. We can actually reduce suffering for humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom.

The fact that we so signally fail in this regard is a sad testament to the unfitness of mankind to rule. In this I am a misanthrope.

Our short term ambitions lead to the suffering, death and eventual extinction of billions of animals every year. Maybe when we finally realise we need ecological diversity to survive ourselves it will be too late.

I believe it to be the measure of a man, how he acts towards his fellow animals. If he treats them with respect and compassion then he is man worth worth knowing and listening to. If not, well...

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Ed,

"OK - so the motivation behind the morality is the feeling of discomfort it gives you? ... Which, I'm afraid, gets us back to the 'homosexuality doesn't seem right to me' idea."

Yeah but no but...

We need to make the politics and law versus morality distinction again. I can - if I want - choose to believe that homosexuality is immoral, as long as I don't seek to make laws banning it.

Where else are our moral feelings going to come from but the sense that something doesn't feel right? I could if I wanted, choose to recognise that there need to be laws against murder and fraud for the social benefits they bring, but break these laws whenever I chose to if I could get away with it. But I don't do that, and the reason I don't do it is not that I fear getting caught but that it feels wrong. This feeling of wrongness doesn't derive from the mutual benefit argument as to why there should be laws against such things, it just happens to coincide with it (not such a coincidence perhaps, but that's another story).

Math,

Please relax and stop being picky on pedantic points on whether leopards gore zebra. (They do. They don't necesarily stop to diagnose death before chewing away. Just so long as it's incapable of running away, they're happy. And have you bever seen a cat play with an injured, panicked animal? "Nature is red in tooth and claw")...I'm simply trying to tease out underlying principles, not win an argument about whether people are better than animals. And as a general point - I am not and have not been arguing that animals should be treated any old how.

Relevant to all the last 3 posts:
>>I believe it to be the measure of a man, how he acts towards his fellow animals.

OK - so what are we measuring against? See what I mean? Who - other than ourselves - will find us wanting if we're cruel to animals? (apart from passing aliens). Why do we feel this way?

And PC's:
>>For me, it's not about the effect on "us", it's about the effect on the animal.

OK - but I'll have to unpick that. Why does the effect on the animal matter to us?

Hi Eddie ,

"Please relax and stop being picky on pedantic points on whether leopards gore zebra."

I did signpost it as pedantry, so relax yourself

"I'm simply trying to tease out underlying principles, not win an argument about whether people are better than animals. And as a general point - I am not and have not been arguing that animals should be treated any old how."

Yup, I know that.

"OK - so what are we measuring against? See what I mean? Who - other than ourselves - will find us wanting if we're cruel to animals? (apart from passing aliens). Why do we feel this way?"

Let's look at the whole quote shall we:
- I believe it to be the measure of a man, how he acts towards his fellow animals. If he treats them with respect and compassion then he is man worth worth knowing and listening to. If not, well...

What I am getting at is that if a man is knowingly and unnecessarily cruel to animals what does it say about him? The future of our species will depend, whether we like it or not, on the common empathy and compassion we are able to create towards each other. If we cannot extend such philosophies towards animals, then what chance is there of us doing so towards each other.

To put it simply, if a man kicked your dog would you shake his hand?

At present our society is at rock bottom. The majority of the populace seems more interested in the fate of the kids of a self-abusing starlet than that of thousands of peaceful monks being marched into concentration camps.

Is mankind worth saving?

Blessings,
Matholwch the Misanthrope .

>Why does the effect on the animal matter to us?<

Because seeing our fellow living creatures suffering should bring rise to our empathy and compassion- because IT HURTS, and hurting= bad. Because people who are cruel are not nice to know. Because if someone can justify eating Bessie or Fido today, what's to stop him from eating me or you tomorrow?

>>Let's look at the whole quote shall we:
- I believe it to be the measure of a man, how he acts towards his fellow animals. If he treats them with respect and compassion then he is man worth worth knowing and listening to. If not, well...

Well, I didn't use the full quote because it's a tautology. We define being good to animals as 'good', therefore good people are those who are kind to animals. I'm more interested in unpicking it than stating it, no matter how floridly.

PC is, I feel getting closer:
>>Because seeing our fellow living creatures suffering should bring rise to our empathy and compassion

Indeed. We have evolved as empathic animals. We can 'feel' pain in others, by inference. But let's unpack this even further: What do we suppose might be the survival value in our empathy?

>>Because if someone can justify eating Bessie or Fido today, what's to stop him from eating me or you tomorrow?

Yet we observe that cannibalism is very, very rare (it's doubtful that any evidence exists for it as a settled pattern) even though meat eating very common. And I'm wondering...are murder rates particularly high amongst slaughterhouse employees?