54 Comments »

1. Gregg100:
   November 11th, 2006 @ 10:07 pm

   I think Dan’s challenge might be interesting but I’m not sure I understand it. When he says, “Assuming a purely materialistic universe, is there any way, based solely on the physical evidence that we can observe, to build a moral or ethical system that is not relative to the individual?” What is your interpretation of “not relative to the individual”? Does that imply the challenge is to build a moral or ethical system that is objective rather than relative and universally applicable to some broader entity than an individual such as a whole culture or the human species? What is the significance of “individual”?

2. Gregg100:
   November 11th, 2006 @ 10:09 pm

   I think Dan’s challenge might be interesting but I’m not sure I understand it. When he says, “Assuming a purely materialistic universe, is there any way, based solely on the physical evidence that we can observe, to build a moral or ethical system that is not relative to the individual?” What is your interpretation of “not relative to the individual”? Does that imply the challenge is to build a moral or ethical system that is objective rather than relative and universally applicable to some broader entity than an individual such as a whole culture or the human species? What is the significance of “individual”? It is the individual that acts in an ethical manner.

3. Gregg100:
   November 11th, 2006 @ 10:11 pm

   Sorry about the duplicate. I must have double clicked.

4. Karen:
   November 12th, 2006 @ 10:01 am

   Slavery being wrong may be a component of some faiths, but certainly not of all – and, arguably, not of Christianity. Christians may have decided that slavery is immoral, but they didn’t use the Bible to do it.

   We make distinctions between animals daily: it’s okay to essentially drown (or suffocate) the fish we eat, or plunge lobsters into boiling water, but neither is okay for the chicken or steer. It’s okay to impale a worm on a hook and drop it into the lake to catch sunfish, but not okay to do the same thing with a mammal if you’re after sharks. Why? Because they are “higher” animals than fish or worms. The distinction between dogs or horses and humans isn’t any different. You don’t need to go to religion to understand that we can make distinctions between how we treat animals based on how much concept of self that animal has, how much suffering it feels (or we think it feels) – essentially, how close it is to being like us.

   That’s not faith. It’s empathy.

5. Terry S.:
   November 12th, 2006 @ 10:33 am

   I may be simply restating what has been written above, but human beings are unique in our ability to make value judgements. We can study through scientific inquiry to discover the black and white of an issue – i.e. Who is fittest to survive. Until humans came on the scene, the answer to that question was effected through natural selection – the fittest survived, the less fit did not.

   We are unique in that we can make decisions that go beyond nature. We can provide a means for the less fit to, in fact, survive. We can create an environment in which the less fit can achieve equal footing on the playing field – i.e. Class divisions in high school sports. Or, we can allow them to succumb. Therein lay the ethical decisions. We can even take the fittest down. In effect, we create a new paradigm, if you will, as to what defines being fittest. We have the ability to intervene with nature. (Does that qualify us as gods?)

   I agree with Noell regarding the issue of slavery. It is NOT an issue of faith. It IS an issue of ethics. Slavery is condoned in the christian bible. Slaves are instructed to be obedient to their masters. From an ethical standpoint people, who recognize slavery is inherently evil, are superior to the christian god who falls miserably short in the ethics department owing to his (her,its) vanity and penchant for revenge.

   TLS

6. ron:
   November 12th, 2006 @ 9:32 pm

   I don’t think nearly enough informed opinion is being expressed on the part of animal intelligence.
   Animals have been known to provide means for the less fit to survive, and not just when they raise their children and care for their elderly.
   Many animals have identifiable language – dolphins, primates, whales, mice and elephants for starters – and many have communication systems that are more direct than verbal language, being enabled with vision capable of seeing a broader spectrum than ourselves, and hearing and scent that do the same.
   Animals have also exhibited personalities, humor, and empathy (cross species and otherwise). Some animals even have behaviors that people interpret as religious (like seahorses doing a dance every sunrise, which serves no benefit to their physiology except perhaps social… celebrating the light of morning).
   Animals play – they gossip – they are choosy about whom they keep company with, given the freedom to do so.

   An increasing number of animals tested show enough self awareness to identify themselves in mirrors – recognizing, with curiosity, anomalies in their reflection (like painted marks).
   You can not name a human quality that other animals have not exhibited in some fashion. The only limitation on this subject is the amount of study and research devoted to it. Humans have just not seen the value of such research – and as it stands, much of the most amazing reports are still anecdotal (often from farmers).

   When it comes to turning a blind eye to the intelligence of animals raised for food – the reason is clear – we’d rather not know. Pigs are infamously more intelligent than dogs. Cows have an unaggressive nature but that does not mean they are content to die, have their mates, siblings and children stolen away, or live in sufferable conditions (thus the maze structure and platform contrivances of the slaughter process – designed to prevent the cow from seeing what happens ahead until it is too late to turn back).

   If someone like Noell (whom I seem to recall said something about fish or chickens being unable to feel pain in a previous post – which is false) honestly feel the ethics of meat eating must get center stage if it turns out that our habits cause an excess of suffering – about a half hour of research will turn any reasonable person into a vegetarian, or a consumer of more responsibly farmed livestock.

   A good book to read regarding agricultural animal intelligence research is “The Pig Who Howled At The Moon” by Jeffrey Masson
   http://www.amazon.com/Pig-Who-Sang-Moon-Emotional/dp/0345452828/sr=1-1/qid=1163391806/ref=sr_1_1/102-3987282-4892955?ie=UTF8&s=books

7. Terry S.:
   November 12th, 2006 @ 11:08 pm

   I suppose, as we evolve, our taste for meat, and our need for other animal-derived products will wain. My older son once proclaimed that he was seriously considering become a vegetarian, but it occurred to him that he didn’t really like vegetables, but DID like meat. Now there’s a quandry.

   There certainly exists solid evidence that properly balanced vegetarian or vegan diets can provide all our nutritional needs. I won’t argue that. However, I am 60 years old, and have eaten meat for virtually my entire life. Generally, I don’t eat as much of it now as I used to, but it is very unlikely that I will ever swear off of it entirely. Certainly, not because someone casts accusations at me for being an animal killer. I believe the history of man eating meat goes back a ways. There is precedent.

   Still, I understand that the ethics regarding our use (or exploitation, if it suits you) of animals for food, clothing, pets, laboratory testing, etc., is a hot button issue. Only time, science, and proper education will ultimately resolve it.

   I do believe that extreme animal rights activists are no less nutballs than religious extremists and anti-abortionists, among others. That any of them have resorted to violence, including murder, and/or the destruction of property makes them terrorists by any definition. They are “true believers” who take the position that their particular cause is, above all others “holy,” and any tactics they use in the advancement of it are justified.

   I find that to be a load of guano.

   As it stands today, the five or so billion people on earth could not survive without the use of animal products. Animal activists who condescend to meat eaters are self-righteous prigs. If they believe it, by all means, they should live it. But, just as with religion, they should not presume to demand that all others must follow suit, or be subject to their violent judgement. (It is my belief that many of the people who involve themselves in such crusades would just find another, if their current passion could no longer be pursued. If memory serves, that is a central part of the discussion of Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer.” Such people tend to jump from one cause to another. It helps them to sustain their sense of moral superiority and self-righteous indignation toward society.) To actually harm or kill other human beings for such a cause is counter productive and, frankly, evil.

   I will defend to the death my right to gnarl on pigs feet and Spam. Ooh, and pass me those Vienna Sausages.

   TLS

8. Noell:
   November 13th, 2006 @ 6:38 am

   Everyone here has contributed excellent information to this discussion, much of the specifics I did not take the time to go into. I’ve really enjoyed these comments.

   Ron, if you’ll remember, I clarified that chickens (did I mention fish?) seem to feel a minimal amount of pain, and it is not comparable to the capacity for pain that humans have. Not only that, but they do not seem to remember it afterward to the degree that humans do, if at all. In addition, they do not appear to feel the social loss when one of their own goes, like humans do (while, on the other hand, elephants seem to mourn when they encounter the bones of other elephants).

   My information on chickens comes from neuroscientist, Sam Harris. Therefore, I believe it would be more accurate for you to say that my contention is controversial and currently under debate, as opposed to “false.” Because it is still not known for sure, and because there are opposing opinions among the scientists in this field, it seems suspect that you claimed my statement to be utterly false. It is always important to admit when your theory is still under debate.

   For example, you said, You can not name a human quality that other animals have not exhibited in some fashion. The only limitation on this subject is the amount of study and research devoted to it. The implication here is that because we have found various animals exhibiting a couple of human qualities in the small amount of research we have done, with more research we will inevitably find them to have almost as much, if not as much, intelligence, social and emotional neediness, and advanced language as humans. Your expectations of what we have not yet discovered seems to have already made up your mind for you and you do not seem to be open to the possibility that each animal only contains a minimal amount of similarity to the complicated human species.

   As for vegetarianism, dear Terry, I do not personally believe that that is the only ethical option, since humans are carnivores by nature and there is a certain amount of balance that results from this if we eat it more sparingly than most Americans do. Another answer to the dilemma is to reduce our consumption to those animals which are not super emotionally attached to their peers, that we provide pleasant living conditions for the animals while they are alive, and that we kill in a way that does not cause them physical suffering. This is easier to do with smaller animals.

9. Terry S.:
   November 13th, 2006 @ 7:56 am

   Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I, too, am a died in the wool carnivore, nor do I apologise for it. I was writing more in response to Ron.

   Additionally, I believe that extremism is, in a sense, symptomatic of self-hatred – such activism is a means of doing pennance.

   I understand the revulsion that some feel toward our exploitation of animals. A slaughter house is not pretty. The methods of raising, transporting and killing chickens, pigs, cattle, etc. often seem heartless and barbaric. We should, I suppose, attempt to clean up our act as it were. Alter the system to reduce what we perceive may be the misery and pain suffered by these animals.

   Problems arise in making change owing to the fact that the food industry in much of the west is huge, and the demands on it are great to maintain production at a high level. Technology has made few significant inroads into this process -VERY few improvements which benefit the animals in any way. Perhaps if animal activists worked WITH the industry rather than against it, some solutions could be achieved.

   Another thought. What are we going to do when someone discerns that carrots scream when yanked from the ground, an apple feels pain when plucked from a tree, and a grape is miserable during the process of becoming a raisin?

10. Olga:
    November 13th, 2006 @ 9:37 am

    Did you know that eating less meat is also helping the environment?
    I always recycle all my glass, paper, and most plastic containers since I believe that it’s a good moral choice. But eating less meat?

    I was reading Jared Diamond’s “Collapse” over the weekend, and found a statement, something like “methane produced by cows has a heat trapping effect measured at over 20 times that of CO2.” I had NO IDEA that cows produce methane! So, I “googled” for more information this morning. Apparently, bacteria in the stomachs of cows (and other ruminant animals) break down and ferment fodder during digestion, producing methane that is released either through flatulence or burping.

    And while the digestive difficulties of one burping cow may not seem like a big deal, the cumulative effects of 1.3 billion cattle producing over 100 million tons of methane annually can have a significant effect on the world’s balance of greenhouse gases. Human-related processes, from energy production to agriculture, produce approximately 60% of the world’s methane. Ruminant animals such as cattle, buffalo, and sheep, are estimated to produce approximately 15% of the world’s total supply. Imagine that!

    There’s more. Corn is a preferred feed and an average cow consumes 25 pounds daily. It takes 1.2 gallons of oil to make the fertilizer used for each bushel of that corn. At that rate, a 1200 pound cow in her short lifetime will consume, in effect, 284 gallons of oil.

    This is just another piece of information that I hope is relevant to this discussion. I do believe that meat consumption is a moral issue, whether it’s about animal treatment or effects on the Earth.

    I personally belong to the “Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Eco-Farming” group, which gets our meat delivered from nearby Amish farmers whose animals live and being slaughtered humanely. I only choose eggs from cage-free chicken. I donate to the U.S. Humane Society and get involved in various issues raised by this organization. And I get my strongest motivations from Peter Singer writings.

11. Noell:
    November 13th, 2006 @ 9:51 am

    Terry–Your original comment was clear enough (although I always enjoy the humor in your posts, so you can add clarifying comments as often as you like!) I just wanted state that I do not think giving up meat is the only option consistent with my view on ethics and morality. But I agree with your critique of many animal rights activists having a form of self-hatred and religiosity.

    Olga–Yes, I did know about an environmental impact from cattle, but not the reason you mentioned. I don’t remember the specifics of what I read years ago, but I don’t think it was because of co2. Fascinating! The environment is one of the many reasons that I rarely eat beef. Most of the meals I cook are chicken, seafood, or meat-free.

    Do you think you could post a link to the organization you are a part of? I am not even aware of any amish communities in my part of the land, but I wonder if we have something here.

    Ron–I wanted to ask you one more thing. I noticed you talked about animals having empathy (which I was aware of) but it surprised me coming from you because it wasn’t long ago that when I said that empathy was innate in humans you were adament that empathy doesn’t even exist. I have two recent articles (New York Times and Newsweek) on the innateness of empathy and its contribution to an innate moral sense that I would like to blog about but haven’t had time yet. Because this is hopefully an upcoming topic, I am curious: are you on board with the empathy thing now? Or do you only attribute it to non-human animals?

12. CelticBear’s Musings » Blog Archive » Science, Ethics; Mistaken Antagonism:
    November 13th, 2006 @ 10:04 am

    [...] On the Agnostic Mom blog (which sadly doesn’t look like it used to thanks to unethical cyber-vandals) she posts some feedback regarding a conversation about ethics and science and animals. Interesting stuff. Humans As Animals and Ethics [...]

13. Karen:
    November 13th, 2006 @ 5:25 pm

    Here’s an anecdote about pain and animals. Don’t read it if you’re bothered by such.

    When I was in college (early 70s) majoring in animal husbandry, undergrads were basically the labor for the school’s farm. Meaning, we did the shearing, the dehorning, the castrating, and the vaccinating.

    We handled the pigs late – they waited for the undergrads to show up in the fall. For optimum vaccination and castration, you do the pigs very young, when they’re small enough to pick up and hold against your legs with one hand while you do the job with the other. These pigs were a couple of months too old, and it required two students to a pig for castration. The pigs were gathered up into a series of side by side pens, each pen with a sow and her litter. The MO was three students into a pen: one to corner the sow and keep her away and two to castrate and vaccinate.

    There were three kinds of pigs: females, who were (obviously) only vaccinated; a very few males, who were earmarked for potential stud boars and thus only vaccinated; and most males, who were vaccinated and castrated.

    When we went into a pen, all the pigs milled about around us, getting in the way. We’d grab one, check its ear, do what had to be done, slap on the disinfectant, and put the pig back down. The pigs we vaccinated and the pigs we castrated behaved exactly the same: as soon as we grabbed them they began squealing and they didn’t stop until we put them down, at which time they all stopped squealing. The volume was precisely the same whether they were cut or jabbed – and in fact, since they *didn’t* run away but remained just milling around and getting in the way, so did the pigs we picked up and immediately put down since we’d already done them.

    Moreover, the sows in the neighboring pens, and their pigs, apparently didn’t care what was going on. They ignored us until we climbed into their pen, and then they behaved in precisely the same manner.

    Pigs may be “smart” but it’s a different kind of smartness than dogs have.

14. Noell:
    November 13th, 2006 @ 6:04 pm

    “Pigs may be “smart” but it’s a different kind of smartness than dogs have. (quote from Karen).

    Just wanted to highlight this important point.

    I once saw my dog utterly humiliated. I had no idea dogs could feel humiliation. And of course, this is anecdotal and my own possibly false interpretation. He had an injured eye and was wearing one of those big cones around his head to keep him from scratching. He got out of the house that way and went running with innocent enthusiasm to a neighboring house in the midst of construction.

    The construction workers began heckling my dog, taunting him because of the cone. My dog’s enthusiasm suddenly dropped, he turned around and came back to me, head down and with a look that showed embarressment. Perhaps it was me projecting my own feelings on my dog. It sure didn’t seem that way, though.

15. Noell:
    November 13th, 2006 @ 6:22 pm

    Okay, I am back again. I guess I have a lot to say on these subjects.

    Terry–As for the idea of evolved human vegetarianism, there would have to be an environmental reason for the change, some sort of pressure. It could be a lack of meat available for consumption over an unbelievably extensive period of time, say thousands of years. It could be social pressure where meat consumption is forbidden or ilegal, again over long period of time. But since we don’t evolve for “noble” purposes, there would have to be something to propel that to happen.

    The other problem with the idea is that there is a general consensus, at least among all the scientists that I read, that humans are not currently evolving. Our environment is changing so dramatically right now that humans are a moving target for evolution. The component that initiates the change, or adaptation, must be sustained for thousands of years before it has its effect on a species. This is why we talk about the evolutionary environment of our ancestors: humans evolved into modern humans in a more less-changing environment in a primitive time.

    Karen–I am curious about your pig story because it turned out different than what I expected. Did you take that to mean the pigs didn’t feel a difference between the two procedures? Did you interpret their squeals as no indication of pain, but a reaction only to your presence?

16. Terry S.:
    November 13th, 2006 @ 9:14 pm

    Noell,

    I wasn’t suggesting that humans would “evolve” to vegetarianism. Any change in that regard that I was suggesting would be through ethical decisions, based, perhaps, on future discoveries regarding our knowledge of animal intelligence or emotional awareness. Anyway, are we to measure the value of an animal’s life and well being based upon its relative intelligence? Treat the smart animals well, but don’t worry about the dummies? Actually, I think any significant move toward vegetarianism is unlikely to happen, not during my lifetime at any rate

    I am not particularly concerned about animal rights. It doesn’t keep me awake at night. I certainly would not knowingly mis-treat or otherwise do harm to an animal other than vermin and certain bugs. But, again, I do eat meat. Also, I know that millions of animals of all kinds have died, in some instances slowly and painfully, in research laboratories. That is not a pleasant thing to dwell on, either. However, without those deaths, unfortunate as they are, we would still be living with 19th century medicine. At the end of the day people must put people first.

    With all this discussion, though, I don’t know if I should be eating smart meat or dumb meat. What a world, what a world.

    TLS

17. Noell:
    November 14th, 2006 @ 6:06 am

    To me it’s not a matter of measure the animal’s value. I think it has only to do with the pain we cause to the animal or others when we kill it for meat. For example, if elephants recognize themselves in mirrors and mourn when they come across the skeleton of another dead elephant, it makes me wonder if they have an emotional connection to their elephant associates and would experience tremendous emotional pain when one goes missing, the way humans do. If so, I would suggest we don’t eat elephants. Since we don’t, that problem is solved.

    When comparing the amount of pain we are inflicting on a chicken and its associates to an elephant, it’s likely there is a huge difference. So let’s eat chickens. I don’t know what kind of pain is involved in killing pigs or cows. Am I making sense? I think the greater the intelligence an animal has, the more like it is to also have a greater capacity for pain.

    The subject of medical research is an unsanswerable dilemma, at least for now, and perhaps forever. I hate to even think about that. But ultimately, I revert to our natural drive to put people first as you do. It may or may not be inconsistent with my own principles. But ultimately, of all the animals in the kingdom, humans are most vulnerable to emotional pain, and perhaps physical, as well.

18. beepbeepitsme:
    November 14th, 2006 @ 6:35 am

    Biologically, humans are animals. If you look up the word animal, we fit the description. The reason many people don’t like it is because their religion has a hierarchy which puts human beings above all other living things.

    It is natural for humans to have a preference for their own species, but it takes religion, for humans to pretend that they are not animals biologically.

19. Terry S.:
    November 14th, 2006 @ 6:37 am

    Noell,

    I also think that being human, and having the ability to make value judgements – certainly more complex judgements than any other animals are capable of as far as we know – weighs heavy on us. We can’t have it all.

    As far as we know, we ARE the supreme beings. Therefore, it falls to us to make hard choices. It is often not pleasant, and sometimes not fair. We all too often make the wrong choices. That can depend on our motives and our wisdom – or lack of same. Just look at how we treat each other, let alone how we treat other animals.

    I would venture to guess that most people, who work in experimental labs that use animals, would say that if given other viable alternatives, they would welcome them. I don’t imagine they enjoy hurting and killing the animals. Some animal activists claim that such experimentation is not necessary – that there are other ways to achieve the same goal. Were that the case, I believe there would be a significant effort to eliminate animal testing. Apparently, it is not.

    What I alluded to above as regards “cleaning up our act” was aimed at what, if any, efforts are being made by anyone to encourage the meat producing industry to develop means to raise, transfer and slaughter animals in as humane a manner as possible. Unless and until we all become vegans, the demand for edible meat will remain high. Perhaps all I am talking about, when it comes down to it, is simply assuaging our sense of guilt.

    I have a sister in-law who was appalled to discover (not till early adulthood) that the meat one buys at the grocery comes from once live animals. She just thought it was somehow manufactured just as you find it in the meat section in the little styrofoam plates covered in clear plastic. – Really! (That is about on the same level as Cher believing that the presidential carvings at Mt. Rushmore were a natural phenomenon.)

    Well, as my son, who is in school in Florida, would say:

    Later Gater

    (Actually, I don’t believe he would say that, but what the heck.)

20. Olga:
    November 14th, 2006 @ 8:25 am

    The Weston A. Price Foundation http://www.westonaprice.org/ is the place to start if you are looking for community-supported farms in your area to buy organic produce and meats from “happy” livestock. The main page contains Local Chapter link in the left pane under Get Involved section that will take you to the list of contact people and other resources by state. I am not sure if you have to become a member in order to get the information.

    I am not a member, but my co-worker is, and she helped me out. At that time I was looking where and how I could get raw milk for my son, that is the milk that comes straight from a cow or a goat without being pasteurized and homogenized. Eventually, I joined the group, which in turn is a part of a private small-scale farmer’s community. The food orders and deliveries are coordinated by a group volunteer (my coordinator sacrifices her whole garage, two huge coolers and a refrigerator once every two weeks to keep our food for half a day until it’s all picked up by members). The produce is organically grown, milk comes “as is” from pasture-fed cows and goats, hotdogs and ham are nitrate free, eggs are from happy chickens. “Happy” because they are raised out on the grass in nice weather, and in the greenhouse in winter with clear white plastic to give more light. They can go out on nice days. They are fed organic alfalfa juice from France in the feed. In the winter they get ground shelled corn and some soy. Hogs are allowed on pasture too, when it suits. Right now they would just tear the grass to pieces. They would go after the roots -they would turn the grass upside down and eat the roots. Right now they get good grass hay and skim milk.

    I know my farmer’s name and address. I have yet to visit the farm, but some members did.

    I am so happy I have this opportunity to help out the small farms and benefit from their wonderful offerings. And I hope that similar arrangements are available in your area.

21. Dan:
    November 14th, 2006 @ 8:25 am

    Hello Noell,

    I’d like to reply to dudley here first, if I may:
    (the comment I’m replying to can be found near the end of http://www.agnosticmom.com/2006/10/15/protecting-your-child-from-discrimination/#comments )

    Hi dudley,

    “Humans are not being classified as non-animals in Social Studies class.”
    When I was in school, I was taught that, especially in the past, animals were used to perform agricultural labor. This was presented as largely OK. Humans were used to work in, say, cotton fields, and this was presented as not OK. The justification for this seemed to be the powerful overtone that humans were in a different class than animals. Hence, they were classified differently.

    “Where in the world are you getting all of these animals working in the field against their will?”
    On farms, ranches, and, in the past, slave plantations.

    “No class, science or non-science, teaches about the use of animals in the field against their “obvious choice” and then uses this as the reason for the ending of human slavery and the categorization of humans as non-animal.”
    I had the strong impression, in part from school, that humans ought not to be enslaved, but animals could be. Is this what you mean?

    “Are you serious that this is your gripe against the public school system?”
    Well, this is an example of a gripe I have. Noell had posted a gripe related to Biology, so I thought it would be cool to post a gripe, too. It’s not something I’m deeply concerned about, though. At the same time, issues relating to public schools are usually good for getting discussions going.

    Peace,
    Dan

    I hope to get to the main article and other comments here soon.

22. dudley:
    November 14th, 2006 @ 9:31 am

    Dan,

    I don’t believe you are being sincere. The idea that your gripe against the public school system is that teachers are sending our children a “double message” by teaching that humans are animals in biology class and then indirectly classifying humans as non-animals in another class by teaching through overtones about animals working in the field against their will and the ending of human slavery is ridiculous. At this point, I think you are simply being obnoxious by playing semantic games with the word “animal”. If you want to discuss biology or public schools or anything, I think you should at least have the humanity to be honest.

    If I’m wrong, and this is in fact your true opinion, then I don’t have much to add to what has already been said in this post and in the comments above. Are you being sincere?

23. ron:
    November 14th, 2006 @ 11:14 pm

    Its taken me a while to reply – sorry if this is disjointed.

    One response seems to imply that I am some kind of extremist and/or vegetarian – well, I’m neither.
    Being a consumer of meat – we can purchase meat that is farmed humanely – if we value reducing animal suffering. Many people don’t even know they have that option. I’ve enjoyed Olga’s contributions, and I’m also becoming involved in local farms that produce food in a way I understand to be healthier and more humane. It costs more – but hospitals expensive too, and I’d rather pay a farmer.

    Certainly there are people I’d call extremists – and certainly they seem to suffer from some psychological problems – but whipping out that label when someone presents an idea that is uncomfortable (the notion that you shouldn’t torture your food – in this case) is unhelpful. Labels obscure communication.

    That animals feel no pain is a false notion that many people still carry. Sorry I misrepresented your notion that chickens feel LESS pain, Noell.

    Empathy – The way people use the word most often – as a way of relating to a similar emotion or circumstance from an informed (yet not identical) perspective – is fine and good. My hesitancy to use the word in the past is due to my notion that people use it in too literal a way.

    Giving examples of how animals behave in captivity can be misleading. I’ve read that pigs are intelligent enough to go insane shortly into their typical lives as livestock on the average pig farm. A person raised in such conditions wouldn’t make a very good example for human potential either.

    Terry’s contention that we are supreme beings: Supreme how?
    Biologists have pretty popular opinion that, as far as animal life goes, insects are by far the most successful animals.
    Life is not a hierarchy, its a web – we are lunch to animals smaller than we can see (they are dining on us right now).

    It seems unreasonable to compare our nervous systems with other animals to determine who has more or less of something – that does not address the fact that it is relative to the species. Given the diversity of animal life – the vast majority of emotion and pain that exists would likely be entirely alien to our own experience. This is where the empathy can get hairy. Presumptuous empathy is the stuff we use with good intentions to pave our way to hell. Smile at the wrong gorilla and he’ll take your head off.

24. Jones:
    November 15th, 2006 @ 4:19 am

    If you have seen cows on a field, you should know that they do have other needs to fullfill. It’s very wrong to think that their only purpose is to be bred and feed us. They come from wild ancestors too, like pigs, lambs, chickens and so on.
    The fact that they are domesticated animals does not mean that they dont need to be free and graze on pastures.
    They way we breed animals nowdays it is extremely unethical and wrong, they suffer from all sort of problems because of the way they are bred and it is scientificcally dimonstrated, still, nothing changes the situation. This doesn’t mean though that I think that humans and animals are on the same level and i cant see anything wrong in owning an animal and eventually eat it if you treat it accordingly to its fisiologic needs and avoid any useless pain.

25. Noell:
    November 15th, 2006 @ 6:41 am

    Ron–I knew you weren’t misrepresenting my statements about chickens on purpose. And thank you for clearing up the empathy concept. I do now remember you explaining the association you have with mystics and empathy, and it’s all clear now.

    I see your point about nervous systems and pain being relative to the species. It’s a possibility. I am not convinced that it is significant (I guess we’ll agree to disagree on this one pending new research), but I see it is a definite possibilitiy and something I will keep my mind open to as we learn more.

    BTW, I don’t know that Terry S. was pointing the finger at you necessarily, as the he was to extreme animal rights activists in general. But I won’t speak for him, since I don’t read minds.

26. Terry S.:
    November 15th, 2006 @ 9:20 am

    I don’t particularly dwell on who is or is not supreme, but by measures we can make, we do have certain advantages over other species. It’s true that bacteria, viruses and any number of parasites are constantly at work both for and against our own bodies. But none of them have a good fast ball, nor can any of them write a sonnet or even peer at other parasites through an electron microscope.

    I understand that through the evolutionary process every living thing has, in effect, honed particular skills to an art which have enabled them to survive and, perhaps, flourish within their particular environment.

    I suppose using a superlative to describe our position in the cosmos is a bit over the top, as it is all relative. As the world changes under the influences of nature (i.e. weather, geologic changes, etc.) and its movement through space, our hold on any semblance of supremacy could be jeapordized in an instant.

    I will temper my enthusiasm by saying that humanity is the nearest thing to being supreme, again, that we know of, since most of us here have sent god packing. As I indicated above, humans can perform tasks that no other life forms can. While I doubt that an amoeba would ever desire to compose poetry, it simply has no capacity to do so. Some other animals do have varying capacities for thought, judgment and creativity, but such abilities are developed to a far greater degree only in humans. Also, humans have an adaptability that few other living things possess. A palm tree could not survive long exposed to an arctic winter. But a person can go from sitting under that same palm, say in Bermuda, wearing a swim suit, then hop a plane, and in hours be cutting ice for an igloo wearing a heavy parka and mukluks. Ah, you say, a parka and mukluks. Give the palm tree similar protection, and it might also survive. The point is that the palm has no capacity of its own to conceive, manufacture, acquire or even put on a parka and mukluks. It is exactly those abilities which we most value and go a long way in defining just who we are. Of course our sense of superiority comes from a certain bias, but I think we’re allowed. Who’s to stop us?

    The stuff that fills our minds – thoughts, curiosity, creative impulses and so on are no more substantial than the air. All of it could disappear in the plume of an atomic blast. But a world left to more successful species, say, cockroaches would be a mindless planet. As far as we know, there is nothing or no one else to care. Of what value is any of our knowledge or supposed wisdom to the universe? Frankly, I have no idea. Probably none. The universe will go on unpreturbed regardless of our presence. It will not register a “shift in the force” in the event of our annihilation. Our understanding of things is of value only to us.

    By the way Ron, I was not accusing you of anything. If it seemed so, I apologize. I guess my transition from the specific to the general was not clear. Although, being “accused” of being a vegetarian does not seem to me a particularly bad thing. Some of my best friends are vegetarians. But no, I did not mean to imply that YOU are an extremist. I simply went off on a jag about people on the fringe, as it were, who become “true believers” in support of any number of causes. I just need to hone my discursive skills.

    TLS

27. ron:
    November 15th, 2006 @ 6:52 pm

    That tendency to shift from specific and general pretty much describes most disagreements folks have here. These are very broad topics – and we feel strongly about them sometimes, and other times certain things just seem so obvious that we disregard contrary opinion out of hand. This is all stuff I am guilty of as much as anyone else.
    I enjoyed your last post, Terry – I liked seeing the thought process shift back and forth from paragraph to paragraph – that’s how I tend to hash these things out for myself in a journal.
    We absolutely have a bias to consider ourselves the peak of evolution. I imagine dolphins have that notion regarding dolphins also. Our adaptability is a tremendous benefit – and it has come largely from having the leisure time to think up complex ideas and the time to be creative and inventive. Sure humans were doing this ages ago – but the boom in the years since industrial age is (as far as I know) unprecedented. Humanity is like a bomb exploding in slow motion – the question is whether or not its something we can survive.

    The poetry point is understood – but my first thought is that other animals are differently creative, and have different standards. There are some pretty fancy octopus gardens, as well as feather and shiny object collections out there that win the evolutionary equivalent to pulitzers (generally – the prize of status, power and breeding privileges). I’m sure some of their achievements are sublime to them as our own species’ are for us.
    I can’t role dung half as well as a scarab (though I haven’t practiced… much).

    By the way – another subject – I watched ‘The God Who Wasn’t There’ today and despite some low production standards and lousy music it was very good in places. I was slow to disregard the existence of a historical Jesus – but the historical evidence against that character’s being literal is far more plentiful and convincing than I was aware of. A good reference from the documentary is the site for a book called The Jesus Puzzle at: http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

28. Terry S.:
    November 15th, 2006 @ 9:20 pm

    Ron said above:

    “Humanity is like a bomb exploding in slow motion – the question is whether or not its something we can survive.”

    I think that is absolutely the situation we find ourselves in. As I have said, I believe humanity has the capacity to find answers to most, if not all, of the questions that we face concerning the origins of life and the cosmos. But, there are no guarantees. What we CAN do and what we WILL do might well be 2 different things. We may go boom. By our own hand or by something outside ourselves – an earthly collision with a marauding comet or an enraged Michelin Man.

    We are certainly moving at a fast pace, faster than at anytime in human history. Some believe we are out of control. That may be. But we are stuck on this crazy ride. We just gotta hold on.

    Ron – An issue I have regarding the abilities of animals is self-awareness. Do you suppose that scarabs lounge around beetle bars bragging amongst themselves about their dung rolling prowess?

    Speaking of beetles, have there been any Ringo Starr sightings in any of those Octopus gardens?

    Otherwise, interesting thoughts, and I will endeavor to check out your reference to the “jesus puzzle.”

    Oh, and Hey, Noell. Sorry if we’ve taken over your space here. These things just have a way of going off on all kinds of tangents. There’s just so much fertile ground here. (I tried to fashion some kind of joke about stepping in fertilizer or some such, but it just wasn’t going to come out right.)

    Later,

    TLS

29. Noell:
    November 16th, 2006 @ 7:17 am

    I like it when you take over the space.

    I agree with the human assessment: I believe humanity has the capacity to find answers to most, if not all, of the questions that we face concerning the origins of life and the cosmos. But, there are no guarantees. What we CAN do and what we WILL do might well be 2 different things.

    When we invented all this technology that is now threatening earthly existence and human health (pollution,global warming, pesticides, plastics that are carcinogens, etc.), we were solving problems and had no way of knowing the consequences. Therefore we can’t blame ourselves for getting into this predicament. We can blame ourselves for not trying harder to get out of it.

    I believe that we can be just as ingenious and find new solutions for the problems we created. Will we do it fast enough? Is it too late? It’s impossible to know for now. The other question that comes along with this is what kind of new devastating problems might we cause ignorantly with the new solutions we devise?

    Still, I can’t blame humanity for creating these issues in ignorance of the negative outcomes.

30. Terry S.:
    November 16th, 2006 @ 8:26 am

    I suppose all of it is our fault, but, as you indicate, blame gets us nowhere. Any time spent chiding ourselves for our lack of insight is time wasted. We must acknowledge our mistakes and then move forward with some dispatch. While you are probably right about unknown consequences of our “fixes.” I think, though, that we are more aware now that cause and effect are very much at play when playing around with things such as our atmosphere, that can have a global consequence. We understand better that we must look forward before we pull the trigger. What might we hit besides our intended target? Indeed, what are the consequences of taking out the target?

    I think its interesting and a bit scary that prior to the detination of the first atomic bomb, there were at least a few of the Manhattan Project scientists who believed there was a remote possibility that once the atom was split, it could, theoretically at least, cause an unstoppable chain reaction and literally destroy the planet. Happily, it didn’t. I bet there were a few sweaty palms out in the New Mexican desert back in 1945.

    TLS

31. ron:
    November 16th, 2006 @ 9:31 pm

    Dung beetle bragging rights – Eric Larson (of Far Side fame) may know better than I, this seems right up his alley.
    Technically – the bragging rights for these beetles is the size of the photo strip in their wallets, since the dung balls house their eggs and the quality of the poo ball helps to determine survival of the genes.

    I’m pretty sure that once folks like us (generally laymen) KNOW about the problems in question, they are hard to avoid. When we stop over fishing or hunting, animal populations tend to grow faster than scientists estimate – - maybe the same will be true for transforming our plastics, reducing dependance on fossil fuels, and forming a victimless global economy.

32. ron:
    November 16th, 2006 @ 9:46 pm

    Before somebody says something: I know its easy to argue that people have known about some problems for ages and they are still problems today… cut me some slack – I was taking a shot at optimism

33. Noell:
    November 16th, 2006 @ 10:05 pm

    Yay for optimism!

34. Terry S.:
    November 16th, 2006 @ 10:08 pm

    I know that a good deal of the environmental (among other) problems we face are blamed on greed. I wouldn’t say that is wrong, but perhaps, only partly right.

    While most of us would favor the reduction of pollutants and other measures which would go some distance toward insuring that the world our children and theirs inherit remains a “friendly” place to live. But we also want whatever life has to offer us NOW. Most of us want the “good life” whatever that might mean. Does that qualify as greed? Perhaps.

    Much of the west has become a highly materialistic culture – the “He who dies with the most toys, wins” culture. But, all of this comes with the meteoric advances in technology. At no other time in human history has there been so much available to so many. It’s not an altogether pretty picture – the juxtaposition of conspicuous consumption as measured against the millions of starving, homeless people all over the world.

    I think that is one of the major problems with our technological “explosion.”
    How can we more fairly and equitably share the wealth? How much is too much? In American society it is largely left to the individual to decide.

    I know this is a rather rambling bit of drivel. It’s not clear what it is I believe about all this. I think the answer to that is: I don’t know.

    I like material things. But there are other “things” I value more. My family, my work, my ability to think. I am 60 years old. I don’t think I have ever owned a car that was manufactured in the same decade in which I owned it. The most I ever paid for a car was $3000. That was a 1984 Plymouth Reliant wagon purchased in the early 1990s. (And let me tell you, it was HOT.)

    I’m not trying to convince anyone of my humility. If I had ever possessed the means, I’ve no doubt that I would have been roaming around some show room or other kicking tires. But, it doesn’t really bother me, either. My only concern is that whatever I or my wife are driving be reasonably dependable. That’s not always been the case. But we have a decent home, and judging by the size of the belts I wear, I have never been forced to miss a meal.

    A lot of people miss a lot of meals – to the extent that they starve to death. I really don’t know what I’m able or willing to sacrifice. Perhaps only this weak effort in the blogosphere. Not much, huh?

    Someday humanity will learn to equitably provide for the needs of ALL.

    Or not.

    TLS

35. Dan:
    November 17th, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

    Hi Noell,

    Thanks for posting this thread on your blog.

    “It is language that allowed us to … develop a capacity for empathy, … “
    I’m not aware of physical evidence or duplicatable experiments that lead to this conclusion. If you know of some, I’m very interested in seeing.

    “”It is language that allowed us to … have some choices beyond our instincts, … “
    Again, I’m looking for physical evidence or experiments, especially regarding choices.

    Suppose that the ability to choose comes from our brains. Suppose brains are composed of things like atoms, electrical charges, stuff like that. From what I understand about physics, these things all operate according to well-established laws.

    I have the sensation of being able to choose. What sort of experiment can be designed to test the hypothesis that others can choose? We can measure their brain waves (things like electrical impulses) or observe their behavior. How do we know that what we have measured is not the result of atoms and stuff operating just as predicted by the known laws of physics? Can we be sure that we have observed a choice? Indeed, can I know that my “choices” are not simply determined by those same laws?

    (Granted, some physisicts allow for randomness on some level, but I don’t think randomness would produce choice in the sense of something we have control over, not choice in the usual sense.)

    I’ll be glad to see what I can find about Daniel Dennet, especially on the internet.

    Now, a logistics-type question: shall I stop there and wait for your comments? I think whether or not choice is possible in a purely physical world may become important as we go on. Shall I continue to work through your main article here, or jump ahead to where you would post your response to this? For now, I plan to start reading the comments section to see if others there wanted to ask me something directly.

    Looking forward to hearing your comments,
    Peace,
    Dan

36. dudley:
    November 17th, 2006 @ 1:24 pm

    Dan,

    You’ve made no indication that you’re interested in discussing anything reasonably here. You made a ridiculous cheap-shot gripe against the public school system based on the amazing fact that the word “animal” has more than one meaning. You then ignored the repeated explanations for this alleged contradiction in the public school curriculum. You are an obnoxious passive-aggressive bully, and now, of all things, you want to discuss the foundations of morality.

37. Gregg100:
    November 17th, 2006 @ 9:23 pm

    Dan,
    I did ask for some interpretation of your earlier comments. Take a look at the first comment on this post.

38. Dan:
    November 18th, 2006 @ 8:13 am

    Hi Dudley,

    OK, well, if I don’t see you around anymore, then, goodbye, and Peace be with you,

    Dan

    Hi Gregg,

    Thanks for the question.

    “What is your interpretation of “not relative to the individual”?
    Here’s what I was trying to say:
    If a person says, “stealing is wrong”, a question might be, “wrong just for you, or wrong for everybody?”. Wrong just for you would be morality relative to the individual, wrong for everyone is universal, or not relative to the individual.

    Now, the next part is a little tricky, I think. Suppose the answer is “I think it’s wrong for everybody, but there’s that guy over there who thinks it’s not wrong for everybody, and his system of morality is as true/valid as mine”. I would say that’s another example of a morality that’s relative to the individual.

    Peace,
    Dan

39. dudley:
    November 18th, 2006 @ 9:10 am

    Heartless.

40. Dan:
    November 18th, 2006 @ 8:00 pm

    Hi again, dudley,

    I just had the chance to read your comment #22 above. Yes, I am honestly, sincerely interested in discussing the topics found in this thread. I am the most interested in discussing whether or not there is a scientific basis for morality, and, more recently, whether humans have the ability to choose. I sometimes adopt the role of a materialist, which in fact I am not, to see where it leads.

    Peace to you,
    Dan

    Hello Noell and everybody,

    I’ve finished reading the comments section up to this point. I don’t see anything else that needs a reply from me right now, but if I’ve missed something, please let me know.

    I’m researching Dennett’s writings, mostly things availible on the internet, looking especially for his basis for morality, and, the big thing that’s got my attention today, evidence that we can make a choice.

    Peace,
    Dan

41. Gregg100:
    November 18th, 2006 @ 10:46 pm

    Dan,

    I too am very interested in the challenge of defining a secular-based approach to ethics/morality. I have been studying that problem for a long time and long ago learned it is very difficult to get one’s arms around the subject because of the very broad spectrum of disciplines involved ranging from philosophy to biology, sociology, anthropology, psychology and the many interdisciplines such as bioethics or sociobiology. Even the judicial process can be involved.

    For a long time, I kept trying to take the classical approach involving development of a metaphysics, metabiology, epistemology, value analysis and finally some definitions of a moral code. I have had little success with this approach and for some reason continue to establish a locus that centers on a very Ayn Randish approach which is very unsatisfying to me at least.

    I have since decided to try some new approaches and am currently working on an approach that is based on a quasi system engineering approach;i.e., justification, requirements analysis, alternate designs, trade studies, selection and implementation. It has been leading down some paths I never explored before and while it may crater in the end, I will have learned just that much more.

    I would be glad to discuss this at any time.

42. Terry S.:
    November 18th, 2006 @ 11:25 pm

    Gregg,

    You amaze me. You have devoted a great deal of thought, time and mental energy to this quest. While I admit to getting hopelessly lost at times, I find it fascinating attempting to follow just where it is you are heading.

    I know you have pretty much abandoned Open Campus. I don’t know if you have another blog site. It would be great, if you feel the urge in the future, to share some of your musings at Open Campus, or elsewhere.

    I don’t know if you were new to blogging when you started Open Campus. If so, the dearth of respondents is, I think, normal. I was blogging for three of four months before I began getting any significant response. Also, owing to the topics we find ourselves dealing with, only a very small # of bloggers will have any interest in them. Frankly, most blogs are put forth by young people interested mainly in themselves – their relationships -sexual and otherwise, their schools, their jobs, and pop culture.

    But regardless, it takes time to build a following. After nearly a year of blogging, I have only a small handfull of people who actually read any of my stuff. Noell’s success is, I think, somewhat of anomaly in the blogosphere. She has been fortunate in that she struck a nerve with a lot of agnostic parents and others who find that the thread of her posts often lend themselves to wide discussion. Just look at this string of comments. I have a nephew whose blog is pretty much as I described above, which gets around a hundred hits a day. (Actually, I think Noell indicated that she now averages about a hundred daily hits as well.) I get 7 or 8 hits a day, and all but perhaps 1 or 2 of those stay on the site for a total of zero seconds.

    If I’m off base about this, if I’m being presumptive, just pretend I didn’t write any of the above. I just offer it in the event you felt that your efforts were not reaching anyone. Hell, I still click over to Open Campus three or four times a week in the hope that you may have posted a new installment.

    Take care all,

    TLS

43. Karen:
    November 19th, 2006 @ 6:56 am

    I don’t know precisely what I think it means. Clearly, however, the pain they felt wasn’t enough to cause them to avoid us – they didn’t run away. Nor was the quality of their vocalizations in any way a warning to their siblings – who didn’t run away – or to the pigs in the adjacent pens. I would like to hope that the tools we were using were so sharp that they didn’t cause much pain (I sliced my leg open once with a very sharp axe and it never hurt at all), so that the pain of the injection was as bad, or worse, than the pain of the castration. All I can say is that the pigs did not seem at all scared of us. And while the sows wanted us out of their pen, they didn’t react to the squeals of pigs in adjacent pens. They didn’t react to us at all until the first of their own pigs squealed.

    I don’t know what was going on in their minds. Pigs can certainly solve puzzles – their capacities are better than dogs’ that way – but they don’t think like dogs, or like us: not just in quantity but quality. They think *differently*, and I’m not sure what (if indeed anything) that means to the overall question of intelligence.

44. Noell:
    November 19th, 2006 @ 7:50 am

    Dan–I think at this point, we can only say there is a partly scientific, and partly rational basis for the hypothesis that humans can have a moral capacity. Like you, I suspect that humans do not have as much free will as the modern west has always thought we had.

    Newer understanding from cognition and neuroscience, as well as hormonal and chemical influences suggest that we have less free will than we perceive, and perhaps we have little to none at all.

    So, to answer your earlier question about physical evidence: there is no direct physical evidence that I know of that shows that language led to empathy. This is why I try to qualify these discussions with a statement that this is still under study and may never be answered. We can’t observe the human mind and its evolution the way we can observe the changes of skeletal structure over time.

    But there are many pieces of “evidence” that are used to come to the theories we are discussing. For one, the scientists in this field look for sameness among all peoples, including and especially the most isolated peoples. If there are concepts of thought and characteristics that exist within every group of humans, no matter the vast cultural differences, no matter the separation from each other over thousands of years, then it often becomes hypothesized that the characteristic could be an evolved adaptation to an environmental pressure. The next step is often to observe a reaction in the brain to certain stimulation, which adds to the belief that the characteristic is biological.

    A good place for someone new to Evolutionary Psychology and all these subjects we are discussing is the book, The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright. He describes the many different theories on these subjects, gives the evidence or thought supports these theories, and he is forthcoming about the strength and weakness regarding the theories.

    Wright falls under the opinion that humans really do not have a free will, yet he proposes the system for morality that I have proposed here. In The Blank Slate Steven Pinker discusses the probability of a diminished free will, although he seems to think we have some. He discusses the dilemma between diminished free will and morality and gives his reasons for why he thinks one doesn’t rule out the other.

    But remember, all this discussion is a balance between some scientific evidence, of which we may not fully understand, and a lot of philosophy and deductive reasoning.

    I have two articles which I have wanted to post on that discusses the biological foundation for the human development of empathy. I hope to get to it soon. One article is in the New York Times and access to it now may be restricted.

    I think what we have been discussing in this thread, especially the slight tangent on animal intelligence, is evidence (although not definitive) that humans are distinct from other animals. The fact that we can even discuss the morality of one of our strongest drives (eating), points to the possibility that humans have an innate moral sense.

45. dudley:
    November 19th, 2006 @ 9:58 am

    Dan,

    As you know, I didn’t ask if you were being sincere about the topics in this thread. I couldn’t care less about that. I asked if you were sincere about your attacks on public schools. More generally, I asked if you were sincere about your flippant and pretend-stupid replies to my questions.

    I will quit and walk away if you answer and retract your cheap-shot attack on the teachers who work in our public school system. That’s all I ask.

46. dudley:
    November 19th, 2006 @ 10:37 am

    Dan,

    Actually, what I really want to know is why.

    You are apparently an intelligent person. You are apparently interested in some of these moral/religious/humanist issues.

    Why the extra baggage of acting this way? There aren’t that many places where you can discuss these kind of things. Why can’t you simply say what you really mean in a sincere way. Why all the responses that are clearly pretend-stupid that are intended to insult (e.g., your last response to me, where you blatentlyanswer the wrong question)? Is this the only way you know how to communicate? I am curious and I don’t understand. Like I said, you are clearly pretty smart, but why the extra mean-spirited baggage…?

47. dudley:
    November 19th, 2006 @ 3:51 pm

    Noell,

    I think it’s probably time that my discussion with Dan ended (finally). I continued at the risk of appearing to be a big pest on your blog. I apologize if that was the case. I do think he is an intelligent person, but I think I also made it clear what I thought of his character.

    His remarks about schools really pushed a button — as if teachers these days need to take this kind of crap. But the main reason I spent the effort, and my message for you, is that I appreciate your many thoughtful posts here and I think your website fills an important role on the internet. I’m relurking now.

    Thanks,
    dudley

48. Noell:
    November 19th, 2006 @ 4:01 pm

    Dudley, while Dan’s questions and comments did not irk me the way they did you, your communication with him did not bother me. While frustration was evident, the communication was respectful enough and that is what is important to me.

    I will admit that I had a particular reader in the past the rubbed me the wrong way and we went on and on for what was probably a few weeks. It got to where I realized I could no longer read his posts without superimposing my judgements of him and I wasn’t sure if I was reading him correctly or misunderstood him. I fiinally did what you did and told him I couldn’t continue the conversation with him any longer.

    I don’t mean to say that you are misunderstanding Dan. I don’t have a judgement on that. I just share this to let you know that I understand your desire to “relurk.” Feel free to delurk again when you have something to add or ask! Because honestly, I was not bothered by the conversation at all. Keep talking if you want, it’s up to you!

49. Dan:
    November 20th, 2006 @ 6:27 am

    (here I’m replying to #41, above)
    Gregg,

    I’d like to hear what paths you’ve gone down so far, either here on this blog or somewhere else.

    Noell, what do you think? Should Gregg & I discuss his findings here? If not, you’re welcome to give Gregg my email address.

    (I’ve just read #42)
    Or, Gregg, we could use your blog…

50. Noell:
    November 20th, 2006 @ 7:13 am

    Dan and Gregg–Whatever you like is good with me. Gregg and I tackle issues from different angles so it’s always interesting for me to read his thoughts. But he probably wouldn’t mind some activity over at his blog! Let us know if you move over there so those who want to follow it or participate can click on Gregg100 name and follow along. Or, Gregg, let me know if you would prefer to email him.

51. Dan:
    November 21st, 2006 @ 4:18 am

    Noell,

    About the “partly scientific” part, I can’t really accept that, I’ll try to explain:
    We can certainly observe human behavior. We see that humans can be kind and unkind (perhaps an aspect of competition). Given that humans evolved, both kindness and unkindness are a result of evolution. Suppose we say that humans can choose when and how to fulfill their various biological or evolutionary drives. The standard that an individual uses when making her choice, that’s what I’m thinking of when I talk about morality, and I think it’s a pretty common definition. It’s that standard that I don’t think can be shown to have a basis in science. To begin, one would have to show that choice is possible (I used it only as a supposition above), which, given all we have learned about the physical world, I think is going to be hard or impossible.

    (This might be a good time to talk about Dennett. From what I’ve read so far, he’s a determinist. But, he says, that’s different from fatalism, because we have the power to avoid things. Thus, the future is not determined. What I don’t understand is how our alleged power to avoid something bad is not also just as determined as everything else. And if it is, then I can’t see any choosing going on. If someone knows how to explain this, I’m listening.)

    “. Like you, I suspect that humans do not have as much free will…
    Well, let’s talk about that for a minute. I think humans have a lot of free will. I sometimes will present a view by starting with a phrase like “Given that humans evolved…”. I use this to mean that for the sake of discussion, let’s take this or that as a given. Like saying x=3 for a certain equation. I don’t mean that x has to always equal 3. And, if we don’t like the outcome of the equation when x=3, then we can use a different number.

    Similarily, if we take as a given that the physical universe is all there is, there are some outcomes that logically follow, I think. If we don’t like those conclusions (and, personally, I don’t), we can choose a different premise. Like that there’s something beyond the natural world.

    Which is the position I actually hold. I think that humans can choose. Sure, there are going to be limitations, like culture or environment. I think that the vast majority of humans live as though we have the power of choice, and this indicates to me that they appeal to, or make use of, something super-(or beyond)-natural.

    “Wright falls under the opinion that humans really do not have a free will…
    What does he say about choice? Does he mean we don’t really have that either? I think we have the power to choose. What do you think?

    “…humans are distinct from other animals.”
    Yes. Well, of course, all species are distinct in some way. My questions are, I hope, along the line of “why choose this or that particular distinction?”

    Hey, I’m really enjoying this discussion, and I hope you are too,
    Peace,
    Dan

    dudley,
    If you want our discussion to end, then, well, Goodbye, and may things go well with you.

    Peace,
    Dan

52. Dan:
    November 21st, 2006 @ 5:53 am

    Gregg,

    I’d be happy staying here, emailing each other, or moving to your blog. My preference would be to move to your blog. What do you want to do?

    My main interests at this time are ethics, morality, and most of all, choice.

    Peace,
    Dan

53. Gregg100:
    November 22nd, 2006 @ 12:30 pm

    Dan,

    I’m off in the very wet Pacific Northwest for Thanksgiving with my youngest daughter and husband but will return to sunny So. Cal. next week and get back in gear on the conversation. Frankly I’m not a big fan of blogs because I find them to be rather restrictive unless I need to learn a lot more. Restrictive in the sense that I am a very visual person and like to use pictures, diagrams, charts etc. I have not learned how to work with them in a blog. Therefore, I prefer the use of emails and attachments. You are welcome to email me. Noell has my email address.

    If someone cares to enlighten me on the feasibility of using pictures, diagrams and charts in a blog, I would be very pleased to take the time to experiment. For example, can I prepare a blog submittal in Microsoft Word, insert a diagram in that blog draft and then copy and paste the submittal to this blog? I find that each blog host is different. I can tell you that I cannot do what I just described in my own blog. I tried it.

54. Dan:
    November 24th, 2006 @ 6:11 am

    Gregg,

    About blogs and pictures…

    You might try

    http://geocities.yahoo.com/

    I don’t know if that’s the kind of thing you’re looking for or not. Pictures can be added, and people can post comments in the guestbook section.

    Here’s an example about biking:

    http://www.geocities.com/mtb_la/

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>