NationStates Jolt Archive

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.

All runners in a race have the same origin (the start line). Should we give them all a first-place trophy?

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.


Basically, no.

Evolution doesn't create any moral situations, because it is a scientific theory, not a moral code.

Thats a logical question?

Hello, Neo Cannen? Humans are omnivores! We are supposed to eat both plants and meat!

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.
The basic answer: no.

All runners in a race have the same origin (the start line). Should we give them all a first-place trophy?

Let me add that I know evolution isn't a race, but I think this gets across my point that having the same origin doesn't make two things the same.

Also, I agree with the statements that evolution isn't a moral code, and that humans have evolved to be omnivores.

Basically, no.

Evolution doesn't create any moral situations, because it is a scientific theory, not a moral code.

Evolution may be a scientific theory but that does not prevent it from having moral implications

Eugenics may be a scientific theroy but that does not prevent it from having moral implications.

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.

Animals eat other animals and we're no different from them, so why can't we?

All runners in a race have the same origin (the start line). Should we give them all a first-place trophy?

Ok then, what (from an evolutionist/athiest POV) gives humans any value over animals.

Evolution may be a scientific theory but that does not prevent it from having moral implications

Eugenics may be a scientific theroy but that does not prevent it from having moral implications.
Whoops, you lose. Godwin's law.

It is natural for us to eat other animals - survival of the fittest and all that - but some of the methods for killing animals by humans are needless. Also, when they're killed for non-consumption purposes, it is equally as needless and immoral.

Ever heard of the food chain? Besides:

http://brainblenders.blogs.com/pop/images/nobody_likes_a_vegetarian.jpg

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.
Evolution is an explanation of a physical mechanism. It's not a program for defining behaviour. Evolution states that all living things evolved, doesn't it? So by defining products of that process as a life form of equal value to a person, that would rule out eating plants. We'd all starve.

I'm a vegetarian because of a Buddhist code of ethics. I also believe in evolution.

Ok then, what (from an evolutionist/athiest POV) gives humans any value over animals.

Evolution is a scientific theory, and atheism is a lack of belief in God. Neither include ethical codes of any kind. If an atheist and/or credible scientist wants a moral code it would need to come from elsewhere.

Animals eat other animals and we're no different from them, so why can't we?

Animals also kill one another over sexual partners. We react with horror when murder is commited by one human too another. My point being that if evolutionists say that all animals are the same, all comming from the same starting point, should we not express the same moral outrage for killing a pig as we do the death of a human.

Thats a logical question?

My sentiment exactly.

Ok then, what (from an evolutionist/athiest POV) gives humans any value over animals.

Opposing thumbs and higher order brain functions.

It is called the food chain and it would not work without predators. :sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

All runners in a race have the same origin (the start line). Should we give them all a first-place trophy?

Diffrent propostion. Your talking about level of advancement in terms of distance. What is it about humans level of advancement that gives us moral supiriority over animals (IE its not ok to kill each other but it is ok to kill animals)

Ok then, what (from an evolutionist/athiest POV) gives humans any value over animals.
What is this value you speak of? And what does it have to do with the need to eat?

Animals also kill one another over sexual partners. We react with horror when murder is commited by one human too another. My point being that if evolutionists say that all animals are the same, all comming from the same starting point, should we not express the same moral outrage for killing a pig as we do the death of a human.

Strawman and non sequitor.

Animals also kill one another over sexual partners. We react with horror when murder is commited by one human too another. My point being that if evolutionists say that all animals are the same, all comming from the same starting point, should we not express the same moral outrage for killing a pig as we do the death of a human.

No because humans have grown past what animals are.
At least most humans have. lol

Humans once killed over sexual partners. It was less than 200 years ago (Maybe less than 100) that dueling over a woman was totally legal.

Animals also kill one another over sexual partners. We react with horror when murder is commited by one human too another. My point being that if evolutionists say that all animals are the same, all comming from the same starting point, should we not express the same moral outrage for killing a pig as we do the death of a human.
If the pig is killed cruelly and without purpose, then yes, we should feel outrage.

My own belief is that although technically all creatures are equal, you have a greater responsibility to those closer related to you. Naturally, you want to help your own child before the children of your neighbors. You're more likely to help out a friend in need than you are a stranger. Thus, humans should place other humans before other species so long as it is logical. Whether this makes eating animals justified or not is your own decision. It doesn't bother me personally, so long as responsibility is taken to ensure that the animals do not endure any extensive cruelty.

Diffrent propostion. Your talking about level of advancement in terms of distance. What is it about humans level of advancement that gives us moral supiriority over animals (IE its not ok to kill each other but it is ok to kill animals)

I would think this is both clear and obvious, but let me say it anyway. Evolution is not a moral code. It is a theory of how different species originated. Any morals beliefs an "evolutionist" has will come from elsewhere.

Whoops, you lose. Godwin's law.

Erm, no. I mentioned Eugenics, not the Nazis. Eugenics existed long before Nazisim. And even if I had, I still fire a very large I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon at Godwins law.

Okay, Point 1. Humans are animals. Yes, thats true.
Point 2. Sometimes in Nature, animals eat other animals. Ironically, pigs will eat other animals. Even human flesh. So, should we as animals eat other animals? How is this a logics question? Moral question, maybe, but only under a long stretch. Of course we should. We wouldn't have evolved our larger brain size and subsequent "superiority" without carnivorous behaviour.

Erm, no. I mentioned Eugenics, not the Nazis. Eugenics existed long before Nazisim. And even if I had, I still fire a very large I.G.N.O.R.E. cannon at Godwins law.
Your implication is that evolution is on par with eugenics and the nazi's. Heavy use of ad hominem and false analogy.

Also killing humans hurts our species as a whole. Killing animals for food helps our species survive. Killing animals for no reason is stupid because it is a waste of our species food source.

I would think this is both clear and obvious, but let me say it anyway. Evolution is not a moral code. It is a theory of how different species originated. Any morals beliefs an "evolutionist" has will come from elsewhere.

Evolution does not exist in a vaccum. It has to be prepared to accept that it has moral implications or it cannot exist. The implications being, it would seem that all creatures evoloved and no one creature is naturally any 'better' than any other. So the moral outrage that occurs between humans over murder of other humans should either be applied to animals OR we should loose our moral outrage and humans should be able to kill other humans in the same way as animals.

No, it's not a moral issue. I have no more qualms against eating people than I do about eating cats.
Okay, now on a less sarcastic note: That was a really stupid question. Evolution functions on the principle that not everybody wins. I have no obligation to feel compassion towards anything I am at all related to.

Evolution does not exist in a vaccum. It has to be prepared to accept that it has moral implications or it cannot exist. The implications being, it would seem that all creatures evoloved and no one creature is naturally any 'better' than any other. So the moral outrage that occurs between humans over murder of other humans should either be applied to animals OR we should loose our moral outrage and humans should be able to kill other humans in the same way as animals.

Hello, evolution has nothing to do with morals. Evolution is a process in nature which existed long before humanity's rise into sophoncy. To make an analogy with your "problem", is it morally correct to build airplanes?

Equating Evolution to Morality about eating animals is like morality about inhaling air. We do it to survive, even though both originate from the same basic components of matter.

Some people choose not to eat meat out of the desire to stop cruelty to animals. Others choose to eat it because they don't see it being over-cruel. It really has nothing to do with Evolution and thus their reasoning comes from an outside source.

From an atheist/evolutionist POV, the morality would come from elsewhere. =P

A theory and a belief do not coincide.
The theory of gravity does not stop me from considering anything moral or immoral. It's simply there.

Your implication is that evolution is on par with eugenics and the nazi's. Heavy use of ad hominem and false analogy.

My implication was that science cannot exist in some kind of moral vaccum where it can be claimed "its science, it has no moral implications". Thats simpley not true.

Hello, evolution has nothing to do with morals. Evolution is a process in nature which existed long before humanity's rise into sophoncy. To make an analogy with your "problem", is it morally correct to build airplanes?

But as part of its logic, evolution states that all animals arrose as a result of (reletively speeking) random mutations and chemical processes. While I am not disputing the reliablity of that statement now, if it is true, then there is nothing that seperates us from animals. If that is the case then we should treat them no diffrently from other humans.

My implication was that science cannot exist in some kind of moral vaccum where it can be claimed "its science, it has no moral implications". Thats simpley not true.

And yet, here we are viewing evolution as only science, and pulling our moral values from elsewhere.

Seems pretty true to me.

Cloning is a scientific research, yet the morality of it is always pulled from other sources, never the research itself.

My implication was that science cannot exist in some kind of moral vaccum where it can be claimed "its science, it has no moral implications". Thats simpley not true.

Yes, but your argumentation is still incomprehensable. Humans are by their nature omnivores. Omnivore means eating plants and meat. Eating meat involves killing animals for food. It's natural that way. Where is your morale problem?

do you want to be the one to go out into a pride of lions and tell them they shouldn't eat meat anymore? Evolution does not say that all life is of equal value. It says that we come from common roots. If anything, it says that some life is NOT of equal value, as species go extinct.

First assumption. There is something in evolution that generates moral evaluations. (This is needed for the argument.)
Second assumption. Survival of the species is a value that is morally approved. This is an assumption based on the first assumption. It is the thing in evolution that is moraly evaluated.

Proposition:
Humans are, of themselves, no different to any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature
Proposed conclusion:
Therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human.

The argument is invalid.

Humans are a different species to pigs.
The moral value is in the survival of the species.
Therefore the killing of a human is moraly wrong as it reduces the survival chances of the human species.
The killing of a pig is morally neutral as it has no effect on the survival chances of the human species.

N.B. This is the Darwinistic view of morality, one I do not agree with personally, but it shows the falsity of the arguments of Peter Singer et al.
My personal disagreement is with the assumptions needed for the argument to work.

Evolution does not exist in a vaccum. It has to be prepared to accept that it has moral implications or it cannot exist. The implications being, it would seem that all creatures evoloved and no one creature is naturally any 'better' than any other. So the moral outrage that occurs between humans over murder of other humans should either be applied to animals OR we should loose our moral outrage and humans should be able to kill other humans in the same way as animals.

If you're going to effectively ignore what I posted before, I'm not going to bother trying to point out just how blatantly flawed your logic in this post is, since you'll just ignore that too.

But as part of its logic, evolution states that all animals arrose as a result of (reletively speeking) random mutations and chemical processes. While I am not disputing the reliablity of that statement now, if it is true, then there is nothing that seperates us from animals. If that is the case then we should treat them no diffrently from other humans.

But you neglect family tendancies.

Cheetahs do not protect Gazelles, they eat them.

You're injecting your own personal moral values (re: we should treat them no differently from other humans) into a scientific statement.

Even if we assume the agreement that all animals are exactly equal to humans, differences will still be there. We treat people different than us differently, with varying degrees depending on how far removed they are from us. By this logic, you can say that we eat animals because they are so far removed and it's positive to our advancement.

But as part of its logic, evolution states that all animals arrose as a result of (reletively speeking) random mutations and chemical processes. While I am not disputing the reliablity of that statement now, if it is true, then there is nothing that seperates us from animals. If that is the case then we should treat them no diffrently from other humans.

:confused:

do you want to be the one to go out into a pride of lions and tell them they shouldn't eat meat anymore? Evolution does not say that all life is of equal value. It says that we come from common roots. If anything, it says that some life is NOT of equal value, as species go extinct.

So what is it that evolutionists would claim seperates humans from the animals.

Evolution does not exist in a vaccum. It has to be prepared to accept that it has moral implications or it cannot exist. The implications being, it would seem that all creatures evoloved and no one creature is naturally any 'better' than any other. So the moral outrage that occurs between humans over murder of other humans should either be applied to animals OR we should loose our moral outrage and humans should be able to kill other humans in the same way as animals.

No, like any tool, evolution has no moral implications. Morality is something we as human beings attribute to things, not something that is inherantly a part of them. If YOU as a person wish to include some sort of moral underpinning to the process of evolution (and this is where eugenics comes in), then that is certainly your choice, but that inclusion comes solely from you, not the process itself.

Furthermore, your whole idea that evolution is a "race" is faulty from the get go. There's no goal, no finish line, no direction. While species may have had common origins, that in no way makes them the same species now. Twin brothers born of the same parents are not the same person when they reach twenty. The process of evolution changes species, so to say you are somehow betraying your species by eating another species that shares a common ancestor is specious at best.

So what is it that evolutionists would claim seperates humans from the animals.

Be more specific. Humans are animals. If you are asking what qualitative or quantitative differences separate Homo sapiens from Drosophila melanogaster, then your question has relevance.

You know, I also happen to be distantly related to carrots, too. Under your logic, I should not hurt anything related to me. According to you, I cannot eat anything at all.
For that matter, I should not use antibiotics or pesticides or a flyswatter. I really shouldn't be typing, for fear of damaging some bacteria.

So what is it that evolutionists would claim seperates humans from the animals.

Evolution is a process wherby those traits which enable a species to survive in a given niche will become more prevalent, and over time new species will come into existance. This is the process which led to humans developing our increased cognitive abilities which are, as far as we can tell, unparalleled throughout evolutionary history.

This separates us from all other species. Our morality too stems from our increased cognitive abilities, and as such morality does not follow logically from a given interpretation of a scientific theory.

The origins of a species has no bearing on whether or not it would be an acceptable food source. Morality surrounding dietary choice is by the very nature of morality in general based on a subjective choice.

My choice to eat meat does not have anything to do with my own beliefs about how those animals evolved. Whilst I accept that my moral choice being based on my perception of an animals worth, is a socially constructed, subjective categorization of such species, it is the case that all morality is inescapably so, and as such it is not so much a logical consequence of evolutionary theory that one should be a vegetarian, but more a subjective position with regards said theory that derives it's morality from the belief that all species have an equality based on common ancestory and that that equality precludes the taking of any life as opposed to specific life.

Eugenics may be a scientific theroy but that does not prevent it from having moral implications.

Eugenics isn't a scientific theory, it's a social philosophy.

evolution isnt a belief system. it is "the truth" (in as much as it necessarily contains errors at this point).

it might give you a different perspective on moral systems. for example, that whole "taking my morality from a belief in the inerrancy of the bible" thing might be shot to hell and you are forced to re-evaluate your moral basis.

a greater understanding of the interconnectedness of life might lead you to a feeling that there are certain animals that one should not eat. this would require more moral thought rather than a deeper understanding of evolution. personally, realizing that we live in a system where life lives on life, always has and always will, leads ME to think that there is no sound basis for the morality of vegetarianism (although there are other very good reasons for choosing it)

but not, evolution has no big moral implications any more than the earth going around the sun does.

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.

Said enough before: evolution has nothing to do with a moral code, nor does it have moral implications.

BUT about that moral code, about the value of animals versus men, I strongly suggest to read the following, fascinating work: James SERPELL, In the company of animals. A study of human-animal relationships, Oxford - New York, 1986. While you're at it, also go for: Stephen BUDIANSKY, The covenant of the wild. Why animals chose domestication, London, 1994. And last but not least: Keith THOMAS, Man and the natural world, changing attitudes in England 1500-1800, London, 1983. Makes for a fascinating read, and gives you a better perspective on the man-animal relationship and a soundly argumented probability of how and where it went crooked in the first place.

Ok then, what (from an evolutionist/athiest POV) gives humans any value over animals.
Nothing, but then again it doesn't even assign a value to anything in the first place. Evolutionary theory places no moral implications on the world at large, and the events in it. (Life, death, starving, prospering, etc are all equivilant in the system as they are simply part of exisitence).

So no, evolution does not create a moral code, because a moral code (a human construct set in place to aid in interpersonal relations) is not a part of nature. Evolution doesn't care if you win or lose, it's simply a statement of the mechanism of existence. A genocidal madman and a loving saint are "morally" the same under evolution.


And really, trying to assign a moral code to the mechanisms of the universe is...absurd.

You know, I also happen to be distantly related to carrots, too. Under your logic, I should not hurt anything related to me. According to you, I cannot eat anything at all.
For that matter, I should not use antibiotics or pesticides or a flyswatter. I really shouldn't be typing, for fear of damaging some bacteria.
And you shouldn't be alive, as your immune system is constantly killing all sorts of bacteria. But you can't kill yourself either, because then various parasites will starve.
What to do...what to do.

And you shouldn't be alive, as your immune system is constantly killing all sorts of bacteria. But you can't kill yourself either, because then various parasites will starve.
What to do...what to do.

I used to have a similar angst issue. Then I just started killing everything that crossed my path, now I'm happy and fulfilled, and have no worries!

(This is not serious before anyone decides to report me to the Mods!)

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.

but it also makes the moral value of killing a plant or bacteria the same as killing a human. therefore i'm an evolutionist and anti-vegitarians. they discriminate against plants.

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.

Actually evolution teaches no such thing. Quite the opposite in fact and whatever common lineage there is also exists in the Creation myth model. So what's on your BBQ?

Lastly theories don't create 'moral situations'. Those are things which crop up in the presence of humans bereft of rationality.

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.


absolutely not! the white blood cells in our body destroy bacteria and viruses that are bodies come in contact with every day... yet evolution proves that they all came from the same origin...

animals kill each other for food... survival of the fittest, there are no morals when it comes down to insinct.

and finally, evolutionists should not be vegetarians.... because if you knew the whole theory of evolution... EVERYTHING came from a single celled ancestor.. this includes plants, animals, protists, fungi... everything that is considered alive, or at one point in its life, alive

CHEESY LEEK CRUMBLE

Serves: 8

Prep: 20 mins
Cook: 50 mins
Cals per serving:600
Fat per serving: 38g

1.3kg (31b) small leeks, trimmed
50g (2oz) Butter
4 cloves garlic, peeled and crushed
1 large baking potato, diced
2tsp plain flour
600ml (1pt) vegetable stock
1 x 142ml tub Double Cream
1tbsp green peppercorns in brine, drained and crushed
4tbtp freshly chopped parsley
150g (5oz) mature Cheddar cheese, grated

FOR THE CRUMBLE
275g (10oz) plain flour
150g (5oz) Butter, diced
115g (4oz) porridge oats

1. Preheat the oven to 190°C/375°F/gas mark 5.
Cut leeks into slices 1 cm (1/2in) thick. Melt butter in a pan and fry leeks for 3 mins. Add garlic, potato and flour and cook, stirring, for 1 min.
2. Blend in stock and bring to boil; simmer for 2 mins. Stir in remaining ingredients for the filling, season and turn into a large ovenproof dish.
3. For the crumble, whizz the flour and butter in a blender until the mixture is like coarse breadcrumbs; add the oats and seasoning. Sprinkle over the leeks and bake for about 45 mins until the crumble turns pale golden.

So what is it that evolutionists would claim seperates humans from the animals.
Sapience. Duh.

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.

First of all, this is a silly question. Those who believe in evolution believe we evolved to be omnivores and eat what is necessary.

Second of all, if you are really going to make this silly assertion, you can't say vegitarian. You have to say that anyone believing in evolution should not eat anything that has not died of natural causes, as both animals and plants evolved from the same common ancestors.

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet
Que? Evolution teaches us nothing of the sort. All it does is explain how we came into being as Homo Sapiens. Period. No moral lesson whatsoever can be derived from this.

Evolution may be a scientific theory but that does not prevent it from having moral implications

Eugenics may be a scientific theroy but that does not prevent it from having moral implications.
Um, no. One is a construct derived from how we perceive the natural order of things came about, while the other is an artificially imposed means of creating a "pure" bloodline.

If there is no God, are their any morals that a human should comply to? Are there any rules one should need to follow? If there is a God, what says humans cannot eat meat? Evolution and creationism are not absolute opposites.

If humans believe in evolution - what makes them different from those who believe in God. What makes you believe that humans are extrinsic moral beings who NEED to respect certain things? Your entire albeit short argument is flawed - because for one point, you do not explain from which perspective you argue.

Life is not equal in the viewing of evolutionism. If evolution is true to life, without God, explain food webs? Humans are just creatures who show intelligence beyond others, they are therefore 'above' animals on a food chain. That does not mean they have to be equal and treat life as equal, it means they need to survive. It means they CAN survive by eating mean with vegetables. Why are humans omnivores? Evolution? Probably.

Evolution - the whole POINT of evolution - is that creatures are not equal.

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of fucking a pig be the same as fucking a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of fuckability?

Because that would be sweet.


Thats just messed up dude.

Morality is not the same thing as science. They do not necessarily apply to each other. To say that evolution creates a moral dilemma is like saying the choice to do good with nuclear power is the same as the choice to eat a salad instead of venison.

I thought there was supposed to be a logical question somewhere in this thread...

But as part of its logic, evolution states that all animals arrose as a result of (reletively speeking) random mutations and chemical processes. While I am not disputing the reliablity of that statement now, if it is true, then there is nothing that seperates us from animals. If that is the case then we should treat them no diffrently from other humans.

*sigh* We do this because we can dear boy. We can burn entire cities, poison of our populations, turn the planet into a dustball. Why do we do this? Because we can.

Morality is only a sense of whats right and wrong that people try to impose over others once they can comfortably sit back and look at things. When we don't want to be overly inconvenienced by morality, we ignore it. Simple as that. When its convenient we use it to look at ourselves and say "oh my, aren't we such good people"

Morality. Personal propoganda for the soul. In business since the Stone Age.

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.
whether or not humans are equal in value to other animals has nothing to do with whether or not humans can "morally" eat other animals. by your logic (and i am being generous with that term), evolutionists should not eat ANY living material at all, including plants or even bacteria, since evolutionary theory applies to all life.

Last I checked humans killed humans all the time, anyways, and have been known to eat them.

Honestly, this is absolutely silly.

We all came from star dust, does this mean I can't break a rock?

Morality is BS in its usual form, anyways.

My 'moral' notions are based on reality, rather than emotional supposition. I want my family to survive, because I consider them to be quality beings capable of making more creatures related to me. I want my friends to survive because I think their genetics are worthy of existing in a world with mine.

I want kitty cats to exist because I want my future relations to have kitty cats to pet, because I like kitty cats.

I want creatures to not go extinct TOO often (A little is okay, frankly, leaves room for new species, as history shows), because I want my future relations to get to experience everything from the lowly but cool 'hydra', to the elephant.

There's no danger of pigs and chickens going extinct, however, so they're free game for munching on.

Whoops, you lose. Godwin's law.
Eugenics does not automatically = Nazis.

If you want to get nasty, Planned Parenthood was started with eugenics in mind...specifically in order to wipe out the black race.

Also... I penned this the other day:Jones’ Corollary to Godwin’s Law:

In an online discussion, when a valid comparison to Hitler or the Nazis (not involving genocide, ethnic cleansing or extinction) is made, it is inevitable that those lacking the ability to dispute the valid comparison will invoke Godwin’s Law in order to save themselves from the public humiliation of being proven wrong.Not that it applies here...just food for thought. ;)

CHEESY LEEK CRUMBLE

Serves: 8

Prep: 20 mins
Cook: 50 mins
Cals per serving:600
Fat per serving: 38g

1.3kg (31b) small leeks, trimmed
50g (2oz) Butter
4 cloves garlic, peeled and crushed
1 large baking potato, diced
2tsp plain flour
600ml (1pt) vegetable stock
1 x 142ml tub Double Cream
1tbsp green peppercorns in brine, drained and crushed
4tbtp freshly chopped parsley
150g (5oz) mature Cheddar cheese, grated

FOR THE CRUMBLE
275g (10oz) plain flour
150g (5oz) Butter, diced
115g (4oz) porridge oats

1. Preheat the oven to 190°C/375°F/gas mark 5.
Cut leeks into slices 1 cm (1/2in) thick. Melt butter in a pan and fry leeks for 3 mins. Add garlic, potato and flour and cook, stirring, for 1 min.
2. Blend in stock and bring to boil; simmer for 2 mins. Stir in remaining ingredients for the filling, season and turn into a large ovenproof dish.
3. For the crumble, whizz the flour and butter in a blender until the mixture is like coarse breadcrumbs; add the oats and seasoning. Sprinkle over the leeks and bake for about 45 mins until the crumble turns pale golden.
Throw some chicken in there and I'd eat the hell out of that. :D

If you want to get nasty, Planned Parenthood was started with eugenics in mind...specifically in order to wipe out the black race.

(a) You are going to have to back that up with something, as it is a ridiculous claim.

(b) There is no black "race". There is an ethnicity often referred to as black, however.

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.

How is that a logical question? Quit stretching logic so much to prove a point and you might get taken a little more seriously.

It's a dog eat dog world, and if I were hungary and trying to survive, i'd eat you if I had to. Survival of the fittest baby, munch munch.

(a) You are going to have to back that up with something, as it is a ridiculous claim.Quotes from Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood)
"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
Not only was Sanger an ardent eugenics advocate, she was also a racist...as evidenced by her own words.

Should I go on?

It's a dog eat dog world, and if I were hungary and trying to survive, i'd eat you if I had to. Survival of the fittest baby, munch munch.
If you were Hungary, you wouldn't need to eat. :p

(Yeah, I'm an asshole.)

Jones’ Corollary to Godwin’s Law:

In an online discussion, when a valid comparison to Hitler or the Nazis (not involving genocide, ethnic cleansing or extinction) is made, it is inevitable that those lacking the ability to dispute the valid comparison will invoke Godwin’s Law in order to save themselves from the public humiliation of being proven wrong.

Also... I penned this the other day:Not that it applies here...just food for thought. ;)

Godwin's law is just a statement of probability, not an indication that a poster has won or lost:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Those invoking it to claim a win have fundamentally misread it or are intentionally misrepresenting it.

Godwin's law is just a statement of probability, not an indication that a poster has won or lost:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Those invoking it to claim a win have fundamentally misread it or are intentionally misrepresenting it.
Part of Godwin's Law states that whoever ultimately makes the comparison to Nazis or Hitler automatically loses.

when you eat fruit, you are eating little fetal plants

Ok then, what (from an evolutionist/athiest POV) gives humans any value over animals.

Humans have largely decided human life is more important then other life, whether or not this is fair is another story.

PS: Eugenics is not a scientific theory, it is simply the practise of sterilizing some members of society to keep out 'bad genes'.

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.

Are you saying having sex with a pig is the same as having sex with a person, because let me tell you...

But seriously, you must be able to see how faulty your logic is.

Part of Godwin's Law states that whoever ultimately makes the comparison to Nazis or Hitler automatically loses.
Actually that's an extension that's been implied over time, not part of Godwin's original text.

From wiki:

Godwin's law (also Godwin's rule of Nazi analogies) is an adage in Internet culture that was originated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states that:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. In addition, it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly. Godwin's law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. Many people understand Godwin's law to mean this, although (as is clear from the statement of the law above) this is not the original formulation.

Ok then, what (from an evolutionist/athiest POV) gives humans any value over animals.
That varies a lot, and I have had arguements about it, but I favor the "sentient/sapient? You're exempt" rule.

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.

Yes and no. While it does acknowledge that in essence all animals have common ancestry, it also clearly states that they are different species now. If one can find a reason other than "divine will" to show humans are superior -like having intelligence and reason - you can design a new valuesystem in which we are still on top. However, that is of course a bit contrived. And since we have reason, we can make the decision not to eat meat or kill other animals- contrary to the evolved tiger for instance.

You can also argue though that since humans are not fundamentally different from animals in a historically biological evolutionary sense there is no reason not to eat both animals AND humans.

The reason you don't eat humans is it helps to spread diseases.

Other than that, it's fine.

Many cultures have done it, and for most of human history, according to some findings in a Spanish cave where some 700k year old homo something or other bones were found with the same marks as prey animal bones.

My implication was that science cannot exist in some kind of moral vaccum where it can be claimed "its science, it has no moral implications". Thats simpley not true.

Scientific theories may have moral implications, but those implications are never as clear as you seem to assume, because it is not as easy to follow how something SHOULD be from how something IS.
For example: Why should someone/thing only be treated according to where it comes from? This is an assumption YOU make.
Others may say: Someone/thing should be treated according to the feelings he/she/it caan have and an animal does not seem have feelings as complicated as humans.

Diffrent propostion. Your talking about level of advancement in terms of distance. What is it about humans level of advancement that gives us moral supiriority over animals (IE its not ok to kill each other but it is ok to kill animals)

What moral superiority over animals?
We are good predators. We created more efficient ways to kill them and using herbs and such, more pleasant ways to eat them.

We have decided that it is incorrect to kill each other.

These two ideas can be considered mutally exclusive.

No because humans have grown past what animals are.
At least most humans have. lol

Humans once killed over sexual partners. It was less than 200 years ago (Maybe less than 100) that dueling over a woman was totally legal.


Humans still kill over sexual partners. That is one of many reasons there are prisons.

To play by your terms:

"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all of the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, now I give you everything." Gen 9:1-3

In other words, regardless of your stance on evolution/creationism, if you regard the Bible as a source of advice and guidance, you should eat meat, because it says so right there in plain words.

Note: I'm an Atheist who knows a lot about most major religions.

Evolution does not exist in a vaccum. It has to be prepared to accept that it has moral implications or it cannot exist.

Um, evolution is a theory which explains how we got from a single-celled animal to the complex being you see today. It explains how beneficial mutations and adaptations make a species stronger and more able to survive, and how harmlful mutations and adaptations weaken and allow a species to be destroyed. It exists quite outside of any morality and is not a living, thinking being so it needs not accept anything, especially a social construct, to exist.

The implications being, it would seem that all creatures evoloved and no one creature is naturally any 'better' than any other.
Incorrect. All creaturs have evolved. Some are better predators than others. Some are worse at defense and flight than others. The weak fall prey to the strong. No morality is necessary here.

So the moral outrage that occurs between humans over murder of other humans should either be applied to animals OR we should loose our moral outrage and humans should be able to kill other humans in the same way as animals.

Why?
Is the lion morally outraged when his mate fells a gazelle?
Or is he morally outraged when another lion attempts to kill him to take his mates?

Your argument is not logical.
Lions do not eat lions in the normal course of events. Most animals do not prey upon their own species for food. It would weaken and destroy the species; therefore the behavior is not reinforced.

Same with humans. Killing each other does not generally increase survival. However, killing and eating prey species (we can take our domesticated hooved and scaley animals, as well as wild game, here) does ensure the survival of the species.

Morality is an artificial construct man has created to punish theft of resources and preying on itself as being counter towards survival. After all, if we had to fight with each other all day just to keep our mate, our den, and our food, we would be severely limiting our ability to reproduce and exist.

Since evolution in its logical form teaches us that humans are, of themselves, no diffrent than any other life form on the planet, all having the same origin and the same place in nature (except us being more intellgent) should therefore the moral value of killing a pig be the same as killing a human?

The basic question being, does evolution create a moral situation where humans are above no other animal in terms of value.

No, evolution creates the situation where humans have evolved into the most dominant predator on the planet. We would be remiss in our duties not to fulfill the role.

There is no notion of comparative "value" in this equation at all.

Planned Parenthood was started with eugenics in mind...specifically in order to wipe out the black race.

So VERY untrue.
Planned Parenthood exists to educate women of all races about their contraceptive options and to prevent any woman from having a pregnancy she could not support financially, emotionally, or socially. More often than not, this population includes young, unmarried women of all ethnicities who would otherwise be doomed to a life of poverty and (less likely now) social ostracism.

Get a grip.

So VERY untrue.
Planned Parenthood was started to educate women of all reaces about their contraceptive options and to prevent any woman from having a pregnancy she could not support financially, emotionally, or socially.

Get a grip.
Actually, if I remember correctly, Margaret Sanger (the founder) and some friends were actually eugenics supporters when they started the American Birth Control League or whatever it was called back then.

Evolution and morality are two different pair of shoes.

So VERY untrue.
Planned Parenthood exists to educate women of all races about their contraceptive options and to prevent any woman from having a pregnancy she could not support financially, emotionally, or socially. More often than not, this population includes young, unmarried women of all ethnicities who would otherwise be doomed to a life of poverty and (less likely now) social ostracism.

Get a grip.
I will, again, point people to Sanger's own words...which I earlier displayed in the post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8835843&postcount=75

I'm both an evolutionist, and a vegetarian. Do I get non-hypocrite points?

I'm both an evolutionist, and a vegetarian. Do I get non-hypocrite points?
you are hereby awarded 5 non-hypocrit points to spend as you choose in our morality store.

Evolution does not exist in a vaccum. It has to be prepared to accept that it has moral implications or it cannot exist.


This makes no sense, Neo... even by your usually convoluted standards.

Do cars exist? What are the moral implications of cars? I don't see that 'cars' necessarily accept the moral implications of their own existence....

Does this mean cars do not exist?

Evolution teaches that the fittest survive. There is no 'moral' implication in that statment, any more than there is in the statement: "2 + 2 = 4".

Perhaps you can derive a morality from "2 + 2", and perhaps you can derive a morality from evolution... but neither concept has any 'morality' of it's own... nor any need for one.


The implications being, it would seem that all creatures evoloved and no one creature is naturally any 'better' than any other. So the moral outrage that occurs between humans over murder of other humans should either be applied to animals OR we should loose our moral outrage and humans should be able to kill other humans in the same way as animals.

You protect your own.

Humans do not like eating humans, as a rule - because it is destructive to human societies... and that is double-edged sword. Almost all human groupings show that, at their roots, they exhibited cannibalistic tendencies.

(If you need evidence for this, try researching resistance to prion diseases).

Some people feel that not eating people is 'protecting their own' ENOUGH... others carry it further, and refuse to eat any meat.

Looking at humans from an evolutionary point of view... we SHOULD eat meat of other animals, because we are omnivores... which makes us scavengers, at least - or possibly predators.

Morality is a result of evolution. We hold the life of humans above other species because he are human and have evolved to behave in a way that is favourable to the survival of our own species. Since evolution led to the creation of morality, any questions about it's implications on morality are already met and satisified by our current behaviour.

So what is it that evolutionists would claim seperates humans from the animals.

The same thing that separates each type of animal from each other type?

The simple fact that they are not the same?

Note: you may have noticed that not all humans HAVE considered even all other humans to be the 'same'.

Please... let this thread die, it's so very weird.

Besides, please refrain from using the term "Evolutionist". It's a derogatory term used by Creationists to describe all the kinds of science that are defying their beliefs. :sniper:

Diffrent propostion. Your talking about level of advancement in terms of distance. What is it about humans level of advancement that gives us moral supiriority over animals (IE its not ok to kill each other but it is ok to kill animals)

I believe that that originally started from religion, or since that humans are social creatures they wouldnt want all their fellow members kind of not living which would kind of destroy the civilization and/or area.

you are hereby awarded 5 non-hypocrit points to spend as you choose in our morality store.

Woot! I wonder how many morality points are required for Nirvana....

when you eat fruit, you are eating little fetal plants

No. Fruit was never alive and never would be alive. Fruit is supposed to be eaten so the seeds would go through the digestive system but would live and have a sort of fertilizer type thing and so it moves around.

Woot! I wonder how many morality points are required for Nirvana....
we just got in a nice simplified SEMI-nirvana that we are letting go for the unheard of price of only 10,000 non-hypo points, or 1mil morality points.

the real nirvana will be out of your reach for several lifetimes. you can however start making downpayments now.

I'm both an evolutionist, and a vegetarian. Do I get non-hypocrite points?

No.

We were originally herbavors until homo habelis learned to use tools and were able to eat meat.

You get more hypocrite points then nonHypocrite points

we just got in a nice simplified SEMI-nirvana that we are letting go for the unheard of price of only 10,000 non-hypo points, or 1mil morality points.

the real nirvana will be out of your reach for several lifetimes. you can however start making downpayments now.

I'm .05% along the path to Semi-Nirvana! Go me!

No.

We were originally herbavors until homo habelis learned to use tools and were able to eat meat.

You get more hypocrite points then nonHypocrite points

Well there goes Semi-Nirvana! :mad:

Question... when do you get it? Humans are supposedly OMNIVORES. We have omnivore dentition... we don't have the "nutcracker jaws" of our extinct Paranthopus fellows. So what?

Well there goes Semi-Nirvana! :mad:
i dont believe a word of what he said. even when we couldnt kill a bit of game we could scavenge something else's kill. im willing to bet a ride on the time machine that we ate meat when we could get it.

Woot! I wonder how many morality points are required for Nirvana....

Depends which album... "In Utero" is 6 morality points at Bestbuy...

No.

We were originally herbavors until homo habelis learned to use tools and were able to eat meat.

You get more hypocrite points then nonHypocrite points

Unlikely... the vesitigial appendix and the canine teeth imply that our ancestors have been omnivores pretty consistently...

Maybe scavengers earlier on, and then hunters later... but always omnivores.

Depends which album... "In Utero" is 6 morality points at Bestbuy...

hmm, that's one more than I have. And I'm saving up for this (http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma6/enlightnirvana.html) Nirvana.

hmm, that's one more than I have. And I'm saving up for this (http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma6/enlightnirvana.html) Nirvana.

Well yes... but, while I'm all in favour of "The End of Suffering... In this lifetime and all future lifetimes"...

The 'other' Nirvana is much cheaper, AND has "Heart Shaped Box" and "All Apologies".... I know where I'd be spending MY morality points... :)

If I wanted to eat humans, and I could do so without any punishment, I would.

Ok then, what (from an evolutionist/athiest POV) gives humans any value over animals.

The answer is that atheism permits everybody to act according to their own moral code and not that which was presumably given to humans by an imaginary friend (God or whatever you want to call this being). Atheism/Evolution theory does not state that any species is superior to others, but that doesn't deny individual animals the right to eat other individuals.

To comtinue your own argument: According to evolution, plants and animals have the same origin. Therefore, humans should not eat anything! :p

Well yes... but, while I'm all in favour of "The End of Suffering... In this lifetime and all future lifetimes"...

The 'other' Nirvana is much cheaper, AND has "Heart Shaped Box" and "All Apologies".... I know where I'd be spending MY morality points... :)

Not to forget Lounge Act, In Bloom and Smells like you know what.

Not to forget Lounge Act, In Bloom and Smells like you know what.

Indeed, Nirvana is heaven. :)

Ever heard of the food chain? Besides:

http://brainblenders.blogs.com/pop/images/nobody_likes_a_vegetarian.jpg

I feel so unloved. :(

Humans do not like eating humans, as a rule - because it is destructive to human societies... and that is double-edged sword. Almost all human groupings show that, at their roots, they exhibited cannibalistic tendencies.

(If you need evidence for this, try researching resistance to prion diseases).

This is a point that's be brought up several times, so I wanted to further clarify:

The biological reason humans don't usually eat each other, and why most animals don't eat their own kind for sustainence, is disease. Remember, selection does NOT work on a population level, so what is good for the species or "society" is not the determining factor; if an individual stood to gain, evolutionarily speaking, from eating its own kind, then that trait would be favored by selection even if it were detrimental to the species as a whole. The reason it is not favorable is that the meat of your own kind is more likely to carry diseases and parasites that can infect and kill you. Meat from other species may carry diseases, but most of them will be adapted to survive in that species and not in your own. Species-jumping is relatively rare in the wild, though many human animal husbandry practices have increased the risk of this type of infection.

Ok then, what (from an evolutionist/athiest POV) gives humans any value over animals.

The fact that each of us is a human. Just as the fact that a wolf is a wolf gives it the right to kill other animals.

No.

We were originally herbavors until homo habelis learned to use tools and were able to eat meat.

You get more hypocrite points then nonHypocrite points

Wrong. Meat has long been a part of ape men diets. Even since our origins in Africa when we were among scavengers. Also, remember that eggs are meat as well, and require no hunting.

In the Evolutionary Battle of the Bands, HUMANS ROCK THE HARDEST!!!