Stop saying "that's how the world is" as though it were morally important.

The BBQ Pit
41

For me, the normative statement in this argument derives from the unarguable biological fact that it is, in fact, how the world works. Quite a bit of what we know about ecology on this planet comes from our knowledge of food chains. They exist. Some things eat other things. We have a place in that food chain. We have evolved to take advantage of an omnivorous diet. We have a number of biological adaptations that point directly to this conclusion.

And, not at all being a smartass, the mere fact that we perceive animals as an acceptable source of nutrition, is an evolutionarily derived trait. They taste good. Molecules from the breakdown of animal tissue bind with specialized receptors on our tongues, triggering a cascade of biochemical reaction which end up in our brains, and elicit a response of “YUM”.

I hate to get all Heinlein on y’all’s asses, because I think that a lot of his ideas were stupid, but any moral system which does not take into account the basic evolutionary reality of our omnivorous species should be scrapped with the greatest possible haste.

42

Yeah, but in about half the cases (human-being wise), it is soooo worth it.

43

“That’s how the world is” comes very close to being a moral stance when you come to the world of work, business, and capitalism.

I haven’t got time to build a framework under that statement, but perhaps someone else has an idea or two.

44

I do believe there is room in a moral framework that leaves some room between sapient being and plaything. This is the failure of those who dismiss moral vegetarians and strict anti-abortionists out of hand. I do not subscribe to their views, but I see that their moral views are not always naive or evil, and might change my mind if there were some scientific basis to be shown behind their weights of the suffering these creatures go through.

Which is not to say that those who do weigh the lives of animals to be valuable should not lessen their deprecation of those who are just exercising their instincts. Just because we are sapient does not mean that we do not have instincts, either.

45

Your pitting would be better if you left the first quote out.

46

Yes, I agree. I was simply saying that a strictly vegetarian morality (as in, one that systematically eschews omnivory) is unrealistic and unsustainable on a social level. It’s fine on an individual level. I have no problems with those who choose vegetarianism in any of its forms, for whatever reason, whether on philosophical, health, or other grounds. I merely object to moral grandstanding. The reality of human history is omnivory, and it is morally…strange…to suggest that a species should not follow its evolutionarily derived characteristics.

47

Not to mention really, really annoying…

48

Humans are silly apes who instinctively want to do all sorts of nasties.

When a bunch of these apes get together, they inadvertently decide on things that benefit or disadvantage their grouping. Let’s call it “society”.

Those that transgress some of these norms get some kind of disapprobation from the majority. These are what we call “morals”.

Eventually empathy gets into the game, where we appreciate the suffering of the victims of those who transgress some of those morals - and eventually we feel those morals to be absolute.

But there’s still a huge amount of wiggle room.

49

Fairness and Justice are ideological concepts. They don’t exist in the physical universe, which is remarkably unfair and unjust.

But that’s the great beauty of being Human.
We CAN create fairness and justice in our world.

50

Yes, most times I’ve watched animals fucking each other there seems to be one animal that is dominant and subdues the other. Pseudocopulation, where an alpha male will rape a lesser male to prove dominance is very common across mammalian species, particularly primates.

Bith I’d argue that such normative statements are more value neutral. People are saying not that eating meat is right because it’s the way things are done, but that it’s value neutral. It’s neither good nor bad, it’s just one source of human sustenance. I recognize that the moral arguments regarding the consumption are incredibly complex, and I can relate to the side that says it’s immoral even though I do eat meat. I think most human morality is anthro-centric though, that morality doesn’t factor into it when you are talking about other species. Though people like St. Francis or Gandhi would disagree with that.

51

I’ve been instructed to not believe you.

Also to get a job and something about a lime on the cummerbund :confused:

52

You must be a real hoot on karaoke night.

53

If I understand you, you are willing to exclude an animal’s predatory instincts from the universe of discourse. I might be able to accept your argument on that premise, but then humans are animals too. Eating is certainly a natural response to hunger, but, you presumably argue, choosing to eat meat is not. Many would disagree with you on that point, based on the species’ long history of an omnivore lifestyle

54

So you’re saying that, if a species as a whole only eats plants and not meat, but is technically capable of digesting it, that species still counts as an omnivore? This is a usage of which I was unaware.

[

](Humans are Omnivores -- The Vegetarian Resource Group)

55

The problem is that it can be used to describe both what an animal **can **eat and what it **does **eat. For instance, regardless of what one is actually feeding it or if it sometimes nibbles on grass, a pet cat is an obligate carnivore.

56

The problem is, of course, everyone can and does create their own version of fairness and justice and then proceeds to try force it onto the rest of the world… frequently with violence. I’m sure you can think of a few examples.

57

Racism/Xenophobia is an evolutionarily derived characteristic. Violence is an evolutionarily derived characteristic. Adultery is an evolutionarily derived characteristic. Evolution has jack shit to do with morality, except to explain why people aren’t very moral.

You’re talking about the police, right? forcing their “don’t steal” morals on the rest of the world, often with violence. The bastards.

58

Leaving the animal example to one side for a moment and returning to the style of argument addressed in the OP - there is a class of moral argument that is legitimately vulnerable to the criticism that it has taken the consequences of a logical “axiom” too far, for example by treating the axiom as absolute without any possibility of qualification. The legitimate criticism is that the moral argument is hopelessly idealistic or unrealistic.

If I say that the primary moral obligation is to do no harm to others, then I can conclude that “Like, we shouldn’t be putting people in prison, man, because that’s, like, so mean. Putting them in prison can’t undo what they’ve done, and we should be all about forgiveness, man (insert rattling of love beads and swishing of kaftans here)”.

It is a perfectly legitimate moral counter-argument to reality test such a position. You can construct the reality test in a number of ways, no doubt (such as by saying the consequence of the position taken would be greater net harm to others than would be the case in imprisoning offenders) but all these arguments can be expressed in the shorthand form - that ain’t the way the world is.

Any moral position that blithely assumes the solution of intractable real world problems is legitimately criticised as - pointless. That is a valid criticism in its own right, and in addition pointlessness is at least a very strong clue that something has gone awry in the logical process that led to that position. It may be tremendously interesting to derive an argument from first principles to the conclusion that “war should be banned”, but when one reality tests this by reflecting upon just how such a ban would be enforced (by war, in the ultimate case) it is apparent that such a moral position is without merit because it leads nowhere. (Not that war is a good thing - just that the concept of a “ban” of war is sterile.)

Moral precepts are not like mathematical ones. In maths, it is perfectly cromulent to manipulate objects (like the square root of negative one) which have no correlate in the real world, and generate conclusions that are valid within the framework under discussion notwithstanding a complete disconnect with the material universe. While it is possible as a matter of form to construct similar moral arguments that do not connect to the real world, such arguments (unlike mathematical ones) are subject to the legitimate criticisms that they are “idealistic” or unrealistic or irrelevant.

Or in other words, reality is a legitimate player in moral discussions.

Or in other other words, to assert, as the OP appears to do, that the way the world is is morally unimportant is mistaken.