Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Vegetarianism and Biology

If the left is able to pre-empt the release of this racial information by NO LONGER basing their liberal ideals on human intelligence equality, then could this herald a new era in animal rights?

Peter Singer would agree. He has always contended that it is the capacity to feel pain, not intelligence, that should justify liberal ideals. Because there is a chance that racial differences could be genetic. So, why shouldn't animals, if not given any legal rights, at least be given the right to life?

I am a hardcore racist-I believe that racial differences are genetic, and significant in origin. But I am also a serious vegetarian, believing that the unnecessary slaughter of animals for food is cruel and a blight on our civilization.

The HBD community always responds: well the difference between humans and animals is, well, that we're human! That makes us better than them by default!

Uh, not really, unless you resort back to religion. Everyone in the conservative groups LOVE to bash the vegetarians. But, you know, what happens if you follow the logic of your beliefs?

Or are you trying to act all macho by chowing down on meat?

6 comments:

Justin Halter said...

Actually, I think you missing the flip side of your own point. You state that people only feel superior to animals because of religion. But conversely, the only reason to be vegetarian is also religious. Based solely on nature, we are a predatory animals, and the natural order is based on all kinds of predatory food chains. Nothing is more natural than enjoying a nice juicy piece of meat!

TabooTruth said...

Ah, but my primary point is that the NATURAL ORDER also establishes various minority groups of being of inferior intelligence to other groups.

So, while we may not eat the lesser intelligent races, if you just go by the "natural order" we should be perfectly justified in enslaving them. Why, well because we can and it's natural.

Look, my main idea is that just because something is natural doesn't mean it's RIGHT. I think it's a simple question of asking whether an animal suffers and whether actions that contribute to the suffering are unnecessary. If an action is both cruel and unnecessary, it is wrong.

Hey, I think I'm going to go and buy some kids in Cambodia for slaves. Oh, it's wrong? But, it's been a natural state of human civilization for millenia!

Justin Halter said...

You make good points, but here is where I think the analogy breaks down: animals do not have the same moral status as humans. I think you will find this conclusion can be reached solely by natural philosophy, not just through religion, as you stated in your post. For example, humans have consciousness, imagination, kinship groups, anticipation of the future, and so on, all of which are qualitatively different than animals, making human enslaving of a different order than the enslaving of an animal.

When you get right down to it, animals that people raise for food usually have a better life and death than animals in the wild. They are protected from disease, from predators, kept well fed, often given opportunities to breed, and have a quicker and more painless death than what they would face in the wild.

If you are saying that the killing of any animal is automatically a moral wrong, I think you are the one operating from a religious ideology, such as enunciated by Jainism or Buddhism. Are you a Buddhist?

TabooTruth said...

I'm influenced by Buddhist philosophies related to ego destruction, but am generally an atheist.

"humans have consciousness, imagination, kinship groups, anticipation of the future, and so on, all of which are qualitatively different than animals"

That is just not true. Many animals are self aware, plan for the future, and have deep family ties. Science continues to break down the myth that humans are unique.

And anyway, all those qualities that you list have significant disparities between human races. I honestly think that if you converse with a race with average IQ<60, then it will be difficult to say that they all experience life at the same level as humans.

"When you get right down to it, animals that people raise for food usually have a better life and death than animals in the wild."

Again, would it be justified to do such a thing to a human? To raise a low IQ human and then kill them and harvest them for their organs?

Better life? Check this out.

Ultimately, the argument is that this is both CRUEL and unnecessary. All nutritional needs can be met by vegetarian food. Sure, you may not look like Arnold, but that's an immense waste of resources anyway.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, this is that one commentator that's mentioned about wanting to "change your views". Look, I had an interesting discussion with Malloy and an anthropologist of africa over here on the recent NYT article: http://www.eyeondna.com/2007/11/11/dna-race-and-intelligence-in-the-new-york-times

You might find something interesting here.

TabooTruth said...

Those discussions get difficult to follow when there are too many people commenting who don't bother reading the evidence and react on only an emotional level.