Comments on: What Is Humanism? http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Modusoperandi http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55871 Modusoperandi Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:15:43 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55871 <b>Moondog</b> <i>"But, I just don't see how we can afford to care about animals enough to say its immoral to kill them for food because of the absurdity of what seems to me a natural conclusion of caring about them to that extent."</i> I'm perfectly fine with killing animals for food. I'm not okay with treating them with unnecessary cruelty (and I think that raising animals or clubbing baby seals for fashion is daft. Leather, good, because cows are tasty. Fur, bad, because mink...I assume...tastes like weasel. I don't know how weasel tastes and, God willing, I'll never find out. If weasels were made for eatin', they wouldn't try so hard to get away). It's the difference between a free-range chicken farmer who has named every chicken but, when dinner time rolls around, one of them loses its head and a factory pig farmer (or worse, cattle raised for veal) who packs them in tight, shoots them full of hormones and anti-biotics, and, come America's dinner time, runs a bunch up the ramp to the bolt machine, which may or may not stun/kill them before they're chopped up. One group gets a pretty good life with a surprise near the end (which, it should be noted, to a lesser or greater degree is pretty much what those of us that don't die in our sleep get) while the other lives and dies in misery. That massive feedlots and factory farming are unsustainable, since they are only so profitable because they "externalize" the true cost to everybody "downstream", like neighbours who can't grow good crops because the shit and piss have ruined the watertable (or go outside because of the permanent, nauseating smell) and the fishermen who have no fish because that same shit and piss have killed the stream, there's at least the <i>potential</i> for public outrage to lead to the <i>possibility</i> for the political will to do something (as with the events that lead to environmental legislation in the 70s). It's not much of a bright spot, but a little flame in the dark is better than nothing. Shorter Modusoperandi: Meat good. Factory Meat bad<sup>*</sup>. *...though it is a good name for a band Moondog "But, I just don't see how we can afford to care about animals enough to say its immoral to kill them for food because of the absurdity of what seems to me a natural conclusion of caring about them to that extent."
I'm perfectly fine with killing animals for food. I'm not okay with treating them with unnecessary cruelty (and I think that raising animals or clubbing baby seals for fashion is daft. Leather, good, because cows are tasty. Fur, bad, because mink...I assume...tastes like weasel. I don't know how weasel tastes and, God willing, I'll never find out. If weasels were made for eatin', they wouldn't try so hard to get away).
It's the difference between a free-range chicken farmer who has named every chicken but, when dinner time rolls around, one of them loses its head and a factory pig farmer (or worse, cattle raised for veal) who packs them in tight, shoots them full of hormones and anti-biotics, and, come America's dinner time, runs a bunch up the ramp to the bolt machine, which may or may not stun/kill them before they're chopped up. One group gets a pretty good life with a surprise near the end (which, it should be noted, to a lesser or greater degree is pretty much what those of us that don't die in our sleep get) while the other lives and dies in misery.
That massive feedlots and factory farming are unsustainable, since they are only so profitable because they "externalize" the true cost to everybody "downstream", like neighbours who can't grow good crops because the shit and piss have ruined the watertable (or go outside because of the permanent, nauseating smell) and the fishermen who have no fish because that same shit and piss have killed the stream, there's at least the potential for public outrage to lead to the possibility for the political will to do something (as with the events that lead to environmental legislation in the 70s). It's not much of a bright spot, but a little flame in the dark is better than nothing.

Shorter Modusoperandi: Meat good. Factory Meat bad*.

*...though it is a good name for a band

]]> By: Moondog http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55851 Moondog Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:54:30 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55851 Thanks for the feedback OMGF and Steve. I guess part of the problem for me, is where to draw the line once you decide to care about the suffering and happiness, desires etc, of other animals. I'm all for humane treatment of animals, even animals raised for food, but the whole circle of life relies on the suffering and death of animals for food for other animals　(among other things, of course)... so, when you start saying that we can't morally draw a line between other animals and humans, how do you keep from arriving at the absurd conclusion that we should protect animals from the suffering caused by other animals? I mean, if their suffering is important enough to refrain from contributing to to the point of not eating them, would it not be important enough to prevent their suffering in general? Obviously not, since that would entail disrupting the entire balance of life. Tigers gotta eat meat, after all. So, working backwards from there, if animal suffering can't be important enough to prevent their being killed for food by other animals, then does it really make sense to say that humans should care enough about them to avoid killing them for food (even though many of us don't really need to eat them to survive)? I'll admit I get the feeling I'm guilty of a few fallacies there somewhere. But, I just don't see how we can afford to care about animals enough to say its immoral to kill them for food because of the absurdity of what seems to me a natural conclusion of caring about them to that extent. Make sense? And I feel like the moral capacity etc that Ebonmuse touched on in the OP that sets us apart from the other animals supports the idea that we're different enough from other animals to not have to commit ourselves to the claim that killing animals for food is immoral. But all that being said, I find that I do care about their suffering enough to not want to contribute to their unnecessary suffering in the process of their becoming food. And I don't know if I could ever wield the knife myself. Which makes me feel like something of a hypocrite. Anyone else struggle with this? Thanks for the feedback OMGF and Steve. I guess part of the problem for me, is where to draw the line once you decide to care about the suffering and happiness, desires etc, of other animals. I'm all for humane treatment of animals, even animals raised for food, but the whole circle of life relies on the suffering and death of animals for food for other animals　(among other things, of course)... so, when you start saying that we can't morally draw a line between other animals and humans, how do you keep from arriving at the absurd conclusion that we should protect animals from the suffering caused by other animals? I mean, if their suffering is important enough to refrain from contributing to to the point of not eating them, would it not be important enough to prevent their suffering in general? Obviously not, since that would entail disrupting the entire balance of life. Tigers gotta eat meat, after all. So, working backwards from there, if animal suffering can't be important enough to prevent their being killed for food by other animals, then does it really make sense to say that humans should care enough about them to avoid killing them for food (even though many of us don't really need to eat them to survive)?

I'll admit I get the feeling I'm guilty of a few fallacies there somewhere. But, I just don't see how we can afford to care about animals enough to say its immoral to kill them for food because of the absurdity of what seems to me a natural conclusion of caring about them to that extent. Make sense? And I feel like the moral capacity etc that Ebonmuse touched on in the OP that sets us apart from the other animals supports the idea that we're different enough from other animals to not have to commit ourselves to the claim that killing animals for food is immoral.

But all that being said, I find that I do care about their suffering enough to not want to contribute to their unnecessary suffering in the process of their becoming food. And I don't know if I could ever wield the knife myself. Which makes me feel like something of a hypocrite.

Anyone else struggle with this?

]]> By: Steve Bowen http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55800 Steve Bowen Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:16:11 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55800 I think there are all sorts of rational reasons to be vegetarian; environmental, ethical and practical. I've even tried it (and being vegan)but I find I can't sustain it, so my apologetic is that I only buy free range, ethically farmed meat and avoid the burger chains (no hardship). Since the meat is more expensive I buy less of it. I also argue that we evolved as an omnivore so an omnivorous diet (without excess meat) is probably optimal. But having said that, with modern supplements that's probably not entirely true either these days. I think there are all sorts of rational reasons to be vegetarian; environmental, ethical and practical. I've even tried it (and being vegan)but I find I can't sustain it, so my apologetic is that I only buy free range, ethically farmed meat and avoid the burger chains (no hardship). Since the meat is more expensive I buy less of it. I also argue that we evolved as an omnivore so an omnivorous diet (without excess meat) is probably optimal. But having said that, with modern supplements that's probably not entirely true either these days.

]]> By: OMGF http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55799 OMGF Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:45:03 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55799 I'm not so sure that we can say, "Other animals lack that moral competence." Hasn't it been shown that some monkeys will go on hunger strikes to keep their cage-mates from being hurt? (See <a href="http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2/" rel="nofollow">here, footnote 12</a>) I'm not so sure that we can say, "Other animals lack that moral competence." Hasn't it been shown that some monkeys will go on hunger strikes to keep their cage-mates from being hurt? (See here, footnote 12)

]]> By: Moondog http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55797 Moondog Tue, 23 Mar 2010 13:48:02 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55797 If we can sorta get back on topic--well, it's not perfectly on topic but it does have to do with something Ebonmuse said in the OP: <blockquote>Other animals lack that moral competence, and so regardless of what considerations we owe them, they are not of equal importance with us.</blockquote> I'd love to hear what some of you think about claims that atheists should be vegetarians since wherever you draw the line between humans and animals is too arbitrary. Even the well-known atheist journalist Christopher Hitchens in his book "God is not Great" grants that a case could be made for forgoing pork in all it's forms--though he doesn't come straight out and endorse this case. I tend to agree with Ebonmuse and humanists in general, and also tend to think that killing animals for food is not immoral, but what say you? If we can sorta get back on topic--well, it's not perfectly on topic but it does have to do with something Ebonmuse said in the OP:

Other animals lack that moral competence, and so regardless of what considerations we owe them, they are not of equal importance with us.

I'd love to hear what some of you think about claims that atheists should be vegetarians since wherever you draw the line between humans and animals is too arbitrary. Even the well-known atheist journalist Christopher Hitchens in his book "God is not Great" grants that a case could be made for forgoing pork in all it's forms--though he doesn't come straight out and endorse this case. I tend to agree with Ebonmuse and humanists in general, and also tend to think that killing animals for food is not immoral, but what say you?

]]> By: Cosmo Wafflefoot http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55793 Cosmo Wafflefoot Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:25:54 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55793 [Last Post] It seems (according to Ebonmuse) I am FLOODING the site. I certainly wouldn't want to do that. I disagree with you that building a culture "isn't" building a myth, or fabric of myths. But, I am certainly in agreement with you philosophically. ["Scandinavia and to some extent northern mainland Europe"] have been stable economically and socially for a decent period of time. Long enough for peoples social (health care for one) needs to be satisfactorily met. It is, in my opinion, a somewhat unique situation. How is the Muslim influx going to effect this? I don't live in that world. I live in a Fundamentalist Christian world. Arguments about just what is "correct thinking" for Atheists, acceptable dogma if you will, is of no use to me. Neither is what worked in Scandinavia. I'm far more interested in combatting the damage I see powerful religious groups doing to my own country and to my own neighbors. Open discrimination against gay people for example. But, alas, I choose to capitalize the word Atheist. I have learned, to late according to Ebonmuse it seems, that I have, as an Atheist, mistakenly wandered into the wrong website. I wish you the best. Hope you do read "Denial of Death". I think you will enjoy it. CW [Last Post] It seems (according to Ebonmuse) I am FLOODING the site. I certainly wouldn't want to do that.

I disagree with you that building a culture "isn't" building a myth, or fabric of myths. But, I am certainly in agreement with you philosophically. ["Scandinavia and to some extent northern mainland Europe"] have been stable economically and socially for a decent period of time. Long enough for peoples social (health care for one) needs to be satisfactorily met. It is, in my opinion, a somewhat unique situation. How is the Muslim influx going to effect this?
I don't live in that world. I live in a Fundamentalist Christian world. Arguments about just what is "correct thinking" for Atheists, acceptable dogma if you will, is of no use to me. Neither is what worked in Scandinavia. I'm far more interested in combatting the damage I see powerful religious groups doing to my own country and to my own neighbors. Open discrimination against gay people for example.
But, alas, I choose to capitalize the word Atheist. I have learned, to late according to Ebonmuse it seems, that I have, as an Atheist, mistakenly wandered into the wrong website.
I wish you the best. Hope you do read "Denial of Death". I think you will enjoy it.
CW

]]> By: Steve Bowen http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55792 Steve Bowen Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:00:26 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55792 <blockquote>Steve? .."But culture isn't myth making, nor is it dependent on myth for sustenance."... Have you heard of America?</blockquote> Cute! But I didn't mean that cultures don't make myths, of course they do, they tell all sorts of lies to themselves. What I guess I should have said is that building a culture isn't building myth. Culture is a substrate upon which you can impose anything including religion or rationality, and it's plastic, like dried out silly putty it doesn't change shape easily but with a bit of work can be moulded eventually. Humanism is a philosophy that can appeal to atheists and the moderately religious alike. As an ethical starting point it's a broad enough tent to carry an educated population along, which is largely what has happened in Scandinavia and to some extent northern mainland Europe. It offers both freedom of and from religion and marginalises the fundies of all stripes.

Steve? .."But culture isn't myth making, nor is it dependent on myth for sustenance."...

Have you heard of America?

Cute! But I didn't mean that cultures don't make myths, of course they do, they tell all sorts of lies to themselves. What I guess I should have said is that building a culture isn't building myth. Culture is a substrate upon which you can impose anything including religion or rationality, and it's plastic, like dried out silly putty it doesn't change shape easily but with a bit of work can be moulded eventually. Humanism is a philosophy that can appeal to atheists and the moderately religious alike. As an ethical starting point it's a broad enough tent to carry an educated population along, which is largely what has happened in Scandinavia and to some extent northern mainland Europe. It offers both freedom of and from religion and marginalises the fundies of all stripes.

]]> By: themann1086 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55789 themann1086 Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:38:19 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55789 Thump, that's not nice. There's no need to insult 4chan like that. Thump, that's not nice.

There's no need to insult 4chan like that.

]]> By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55785 Thumpalumpacus Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:54:57 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55785 <blockquote>Your personal religion?</blockquote> "No, u" is an argument best practiced on 4chan. If you're accusing me of faith, please lay out your evidence. Also, raise your standard of discourse, lest you lower the standards here.

Your personal religion?

"No, u" is an argument best practiced on 4chan. If you're accusing me of faith, please lay out your evidence.

Also, raise your standard of discourse, lest you lower the standards here.

]]> By: Moondog http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55782 Moondog Tue, 23 Mar 2010 00:45:09 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55782 Cosmo, I love how every time someone makes a really good point, you just dismiss it with a quip. You have a lot of explaining to do to make more sense than the other people here, but you don't even try. Or maybe you're just not good at explaining. Cosmo, I love how every time someone makes a really good point, you just dismiss it with a quip. You have a lot of explaining to do to make more sense than the other people here, but you don't even try. Or maybe you're just not good at explaining.

]]> By: Cosmo Wafflefoot http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55780 Cosmo Wafflefoot Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:05:54 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55780 ..."In that event, atheism offers me the openness to define heroism for myself without the bullshit of religion or the peer-pressure of culture"... Your personal religion? . Steve? .."But culture isn't myth making, nor is it dependent on myth for sustenance."... Have you heard of America? ..."In that event, atheism offers me the openness to define heroism for myself without the bullshit of religion or the peer-pressure of culture"... Your personal religion?

. Steve? .."But culture isn't myth making, nor is it dependent on myth for sustenance."...

Have you heard of America?

]]> By: Thumpalumpacus http://www.daylightatheism.org/2010/03/what-is-humanism.html#comment-55770 Thumpalumpacus Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:22:46 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=1840#comment-55770 <blockquote>Are you a comedian?</blockquote> I've been known to crack wise on occasion, yeah. I wrote: <blockquote>...."Nonsense. The difference you are ignoring is that the fundamentalist or homicide-bomber is not only interested in his or her life's meaning, but in imposing their own meaning onto the lives of others."....</blockquote> to which you replied: <blockquote>Not like you, right?</blockquote> Wait, having a discussion has become "seeking to impose"? I thought we were just talking. All I did was explain why I think your position is nonsense. I don't care whether you accept it or not. <blockquote>No. As I believe I stated, religion and culture provide a arena for immortality and heroism. What do you offer?</blockquote> I will assume that you mean "my position" and not me personally in your last question. In that event, atheism offers me the openness to define heroism for myself without the bullshit of religion or the peer-pressure of culture. Given that you never demonstrated the neccessity of religion in that other migraine of a thread, you'd ought not make this bald assertion as if you've proved your point there. You haven't.

Are you a comedian?

I've been known to crack wise on occasion, yeah.

I wrote:

...."Nonsense. The difference you are ignoring is that the fundamentalist or homicide-bomber is not only interested in his or her life's meaning, but in imposing their own meaning onto the lives of others."....

to which you replied:

Not like you, right?

Wait, having a discussion has become "seeking to impose"? I thought we were just talking. All I did was explain why I think your position is nonsense. I don't care whether you accept it or not.

No. As I believe I stated, religion and culture provide a arena for immortality and heroism. What do you offer?

I will assume that you mean "my position" and not me personally in your last question. In that event, atheism offers me the openness to define heroism for myself without the bullshit of religion or the peer-pressure of culture. Given that you never demonstrated the neccessity of religion in that other migraine of a thread, you'd ought not make this bald assertion as if you've proved your point there. You haven't.

]]>