Grorganic
New
[This post and the 42 which follow it were split out of the Veganism thread so as to avoid cluttering up that thread with discussion not strictly about veganism. Unfortunately, some of the preceding posts within that Veganism thread are referenced in this thread, and can't be split out because they concern veganism too, which makes this thread start a bit disjointedly. It might be useful then to review the following posts in that Veganism thread before embarking on this one:
This prefix added by Laird after splitting out this thread on 2016-01-28. Nothing in the remainder of the post has been edited.]
Hi Laird,
Hey there – since we aren’t going to convince each other, please read the following knowing I’m not some anti-vegan jerk, we just have very different strong feelings about this OK? I don't think at this point any progress can be made but at least you'll see where I'm coming from.
To summarize thus far - first, we can toss aside the idea that eating an animal is objectively morally wrong and unethical (your affirmation of my road kill example). Second, we’ve already established that life lives off of life and killing is part of living – two sides of the same coin like destruction/creation. Third, I totally respect your personal decision to abide by the guiding principle of “avoid avoidable harm” and like you said, “that which constitutes harm is a matter of judgement.” Agreed.
I want to recognize that your philosophical position is much more nuanced and thoughtful than I originally absorbed (way more than just a self-righteous, morally superior “carnism” condescension like Jumbo’s drive-by comment) and therefore I don’t really see this as an argument over food choices anymore but more of a discussion of overarching morality and these objective moral “tenets or principles” that you just say exist everywhere. Unfortunately, there is little proof supporting that assertion – it’s just what you feel – time to be honest about that – you have every right to feel that way - just don’t tell me to feel that way when I’ve investigated/contemplated this for 30+ years and come to a different conclusion. And obviously, this type of “objective morality” discussion/assertion has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years without any universally accepted conclusion (hint hint). I stated that moral relativism is reality and is backed by a ton of cultural evidence and you simply said “Empirical uncertainty is one major reason why despite that morality is objective, our moral choices sometimes anyway require the exercise of judgement". So empirical uncertainty is the reason I’m blind to this “objective morality” yet it is empirically true that every human culture has varying versions of morality? What is the basis for your proposed objective morality since there’s no empirical certainty that proves it exists? Where does the “objective morality” you propose come from?
To comment on your statement - "As far, though, as any argument that culture can justify harms absent any belief in mitigating "unavoidable" factors such as post-mortal merit, then, no, we do not, as I think is already clear, see eye to eye there." Anthropological evidence strongly suggests EVERY CULTURE has these mitigating beliefs - you are simply sympathetic to some and not to others; or of course, you aren’t aware of them in all cultures. For example, in Western culture, one "mitigating belief" is that God provided animals and plants for humans to eat (as evidenced in “Grace” before meals: "Bless us, O Lord! and these Thy gifts, which we are about to receive from Thy bounty, through Christ our Lord. Amen."). Can you imagine being a Christian and believing killing and eating animals is wrong when Jesus (God) Himself provided fish for the people while on earth? Talk about a conflict of interest!! So, by you suggesting that everyone should avoid killing and eating animals, you are in direct conflict with the God of 1 billion people on this earth. Who do you think they are going to listen to? God or Laird?
Look, for me, based on what I’ve seen, heard, read and experienced in my life, I personally despise the idea of cultural/moral superiority and judgment as it has led to more HARM than we can even comprehend for humans/environments/other living organisms over time. This cultural/moral superiority and judgment is what you’re advancing here cloaked in veganism. It’s a position that is nurtured by privilege – the ability to have choices, when so many do not. There is no objective morality which transcends culture – sorry, there are only subjective moral convictions nested in culture my friend. I mean, seriously, saying this - “the violation of the rights/sanctity of animals is the biggest moral problem in the world today” – is so clearly subjective. Therefore, all your solutions to the problem are extreme for you whereas others who don’t see this as the biggest moral problem in the world might not be willing to entertain such extreme measures.
A poem by my favorite poet, Gary Snyder, a Buddhist btw, that I’d like to share:
Eating the living germs of grasses
Eating the ova of large birds
the fleshy sweetness packed
around the sperm of swaying trees
The muscles of the flanks and thighs of
soft-voiced cows
the bounce in the lamb’s leap
the swish in the ox’s tail
Eating roots grown swollen
inside the soil
Drawing on life of living
clustered points of light spun
out of space
hidden in the grape.
Eating each other’s seed
eating
ah, each other.
Kissing the lover in the mouth of bread:
lip to lip.
— Gary Snyder
Heavy Harvests,
Grorganic
- #58 by Grorganic.
- #72 by Laird.
- #92 by Grorganic.
- #94 by Laird.
- #99 by Grorganic.
- #116 by Laird.
- #117 by Neil.
This prefix added by Laird after splitting out this thread on 2016-01-28. Nothing in the remainder of the post has been edited.]
Hi Laird,
Hey there – since we aren’t going to convince each other, please read the following knowing I’m not some anti-vegan jerk, we just have very different strong feelings about this OK? I don't think at this point any progress can be made but at least you'll see where I'm coming from.
To summarize thus far - first, we can toss aside the idea that eating an animal is objectively morally wrong and unethical (your affirmation of my road kill example). Second, we’ve already established that life lives off of life and killing is part of living – two sides of the same coin like destruction/creation. Third, I totally respect your personal decision to abide by the guiding principle of “avoid avoidable harm” and like you said, “that which constitutes harm is a matter of judgement.” Agreed.
I want to recognize that your philosophical position is much more nuanced and thoughtful than I originally absorbed (way more than just a self-righteous, morally superior “carnism” condescension like Jumbo’s drive-by comment) and therefore I don’t really see this as an argument over food choices anymore but more of a discussion of overarching morality and these objective moral “tenets or principles” that you just say exist everywhere. Unfortunately, there is little proof supporting that assertion – it’s just what you feel – time to be honest about that – you have every right to feel that way - just don’t tell me to feel that way when I’ve investigated/contemplated this for 30+ years and come to a different conclusion. And obviously, this type of “objective morality” discussion/assertion has been going on for thousands upon thousands of years without any universally accepted conclusion (hint hint). I stated that moral relativism is reality and is backed by a ton of cultural evidence and you simply said “Empirical uncertainty is one major reason why despite that morality is objective, our moral choices sometimes anyway require the exercise of judgement". So empirical uncertainty is the reason I’m blind to this “objective morality” yet it is empirically true that every human culture has varying versions of morality? What is the basis for your proposed objective morality since there’s no empirical certainty that proves it exists? Where does the “objective morality” you propose come from?
To comment on your statement - "As far, though, as any argument that culture can justify harms absent any belief in mitigating "unavoidable" factors such as post-mortal merit, then, no, we do not, as I think is already clear, see eye to eye there." Anthropological evidence strongly suggests EVERY CULTURE has these mitigating beliefs - you are simply sympathetic to some and not to others; or of course, you aren’t aware of them in all cultures. For example, in Western culture, one "mitigating belief" is that God provided animals and plants for humans to eat (as evidenced in “Grace” before meals: "Bless us, O Lord! and these Thy gifts, which we are about to receive from Thy bounty, through Christ our Lord. Amen."). Can you imagine being a Christian and believing killing and eating animals is wrong when Jesus (God) Himself provided fish for the people while on earth? Talk about a conflict of interest!! So, by you suggesting that everyone should avoid killing and eating animals, you are in direct conflict with the God of 1 billion people on this earth. Who do you think they are going to listen to? God or Laird?
Look, for me, based on what I’ve seen, heard, read and experienced in my life, I personally despise the idea of cultural/moral superiority and judgment as it has led to more HARM than we can even comprehend for humans/environments/other living organisms over time. This cultural/moral superiority and judgment is what you’re advancing here cloaked in veganism. It’s a position that is nurtured by privilege – the ability to have choices, when so many do not. There is no objective morality which transcends culture – sorry, there are only subjective moral convictions nested in culture my friend. I mean, seriously, saying this - “the violation of the rights/sanctity of animals is the biggest moral problem in the world today” – is so clearly subjective. Therefore, all your solutions to the problem are extreme for you whereas others who don’t see this as the biggest moral problem in the world might not be willing to entertain such extreme measures.
A poem by my favorite poet, Gary Snyder, a Buddhist btw, that I’d like to share:
Eating the living germs of grasses
Eating the ova of large birds
the fleshy sweetness packed
around the sperm of swaying trees
The muscles of the flanks and thighs of
soft-voiced cows
the bounce in the lamb’s leap
the swish in the ox’s tail
Eating roots grown swollen
inside the soil
Drawing on life of living
clustered points of light spun
out of space
hidden in the grape.
Eating each other’s seed
eating
ah, each other.
Kissing the lover in the mouth of bread:
lip to lip.
— Gary Snyder
Heavy Harvests,
Grorganic
Last edited by a moderator: