Atheists, Ethics & Medical Experimentation

PDN

This is interesting. I thought the discussion might get onto vegetarianism. Of course as a Christian this is much simpler for me. If God wanted us to be vegetarians then He wouldn't have made animals out of meat.

I find it interesting that some atheists see it as ethical to eat some animals but not others. For example, I have eaten both dog meat and dolphin steaks yet a friend of mine strongly argued that eating dogs was wrong, not just on sentimental grounds, but ethical grounds. This cannot be an issue of sentinence because I understand that dolphins are considered to be more intelligent than your average mutt.

I have never eaten chimpanzee, but a friend of mine assures me they taste excellent. I don't see any ethical problem with eating a chimp. Then again, I'm not aware that the Bible specifically forbids eating human flesh. So maybe I would agree with Buddha's approach to eating meat - it may be ethically OK to consume human flesh, but killing a person for that purpose would be both unethical and illegal.

Tar.Aldarion

For a lot of people, the cuter/furrier an animal is, the more rights it should have, which includes the right to not be eaten. Nonsense.

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

For a lot of people, the cuter/furrier an animal is, the more rights it should have, which includes the right to not be eaten. Nonsense.

It all depends where you are in the world. People eat dogs around SE Asia, cows safely wander the streets of India, Middle Eastern pigs are safe, but South Americans eat guinea pigs by the truckload (like chicken I assure you)...

Is one only justified in eating meat if you are poor and can't afford multivitamins or a diversity of farm produce?

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

It all depends where you are in the world. People eat dogs around SE Asia, cows safely wander the streets of India, Middle Eastern pigs are safe, but South Americans eat guinea pigs by the truckload (like chicken I assure you)...

Is one only justified in eating meat if you are poor and can't afford multivitamins or a diversity of farm produce?

One distinction with dogs, or at least with domesticated dogs is that they have not evolved from artificial selection, they have evolved from artificial selection. Some breeds especially. Dito any domesticated animal.

Apparently, if you pick the least aggressive fox, and breed it and repeat this process 40 times, you end up with a playful little fox which resembles a puppy dog!

Tal.Aldarion is right, my only point is I think it's takes strenght to be someone like Tal.Aldarion on this issue, the argument is clear and rational. Some of us don't have the strength of character to live it. We should be honest and humble about that.

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

It all depends where you are in the world. People eat dogs around SE Asia, cows safely wander the streets of India, Middle Eastern pigs are safe, but South Americans eat guinea pigs by the truckload (like chicken I assure you)...

I know that, I am just saying how it is for a lot of people.

Is one only justified in eating meat if you are poor and can't afford multivitamins or a diversity of farm produce?

Morality is subjective so I assume you are just asking my opinion. If is a choice of kill or die, that is up to the individual in question. Where we live, life is simply luxuriant, I can not justify eating meat whatsoever(Even though meat is my favourite food by far, all I ate as a child.), especially as there is fake meat readily available, which in some cases tastes better than the real thing.

Tar.Aldarion

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

For a lot of people, the cuter/furrier an animal is, the more rights it should have, which includes the right to not be eaten. Nonsense.

I duno, I think ducks and chickens are awfully cute (we keep both, they really are) and while I rarely eat the former and sometimes the latter I do still eat them...
if they're already dead they're already dead...

Tim Robbins

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Morality is subjective so I assume you are just asking my opinion. If is a choice of kill or die, that is up to the individual in question. Where we live, life is simply luxuriant, I can not justify eating meat whatsoever(Even though meat is my favourite food by far, all I ate as a child.), especially as there is fake meat readily available, which in some cases tastes better than the real thing.

There is an element of subjectivity to morality but it is not immune from reason.
We can look at evidence, construct an argument, use logic and arrive at some sort of conclusion. We can look at consequences etc.
We can use philosophical arguments. e.g. Kant's what would happen if everybody does this?

The moral ethical argument for being a Veggie is valid and sound as far as I am concerned.

Cardinal

PDN wrote:

This is interesting. I thought the discussion might get onto vegetarianism. Of course as a Christian this is much simpler for me. If God wanted us to be vegetarians then He wouldn't have made animals out of meat.

I find it interesting that some atheists see it as ethical to eat some animals but not others. For example, I have eaten both dog meat and dolphin steaks yet a friend of mine strongly argued that eating dogs was wrong, not just on sentimental grounds, but ethical grounds. This cannot be an issue of sentinence because I understand that dolphins are considered to be more intelligent than your average mutt.

I have never eaten chimpanzee, but a friend of mine assures me they taste excellent. I don't see any ethical problem with eating a chimp. Then again, I'm not aware that the Bible specifically forbids eating human flesh. So maybe I would agree with Buddha's approach to eating meat - it may be ethically OK to consume human flesh, but killing a person for that purpose would be both unethical and illegal.

Your logic here has a severe flaw. You're assuming that your morals are correct. You say it can't be issue of sentience, because dolphins are sentient and you ate a dolphin. Did you ever consider that eating dolphins is not moral?

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about. Your archaic morals are lagging behind the real world.

I don't mean to propose that I am certain that eating chimps or dolphins is immoral, but I would tend to think that it is. In part due to their sentience.

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Where we live, life is simply luxuriant, I can not justify eating meat whatsoever(Even though meat is my favourite food by far, all I ate as a child.)

Kudos to you then.

I couldn't picture life without meat - I hate vegetables. I know my quality of life would be greatly diminished if I couldn't enjoy a meal. Whether that clouds my mind as to the moral question is another thing.

bluewolf wrote:

if they're already dead they're already dead...

Bluewolf it's really not healthy to eat roadkill...

Tim Robbins

Cardinal wrote:

This is an example of exactly what I was talking about. Your archaic morals are lagging behind the real world.

Sorry for butting in here, but I am going to have stand up for PDN here.
You give out about his logic and then use the above rhetoric:
What is the "real world", why are his morals "archaic"? This is far from a alogical argument Cardinal.

If one is a believer in God, I think one can construct a rational argument for eating animals in that one can use as an axiom, there is something extra special about us, we are created in Gods own image or something like that and construct some ethical argument for it being ok to eat an animal. That axiom is unavailable to me.

I'll let PDN take over

Tar.Aldarion

bluewolf wrote:

I duno, I think ducks and chickens are awfully cute (we keep both, they really are) and while I rarely eat the former and sometimes the latter I do still eat them...
if they're already dead they're already dead...

Again Bluey, as I said to The Atheist, there are of course exceptions to a rule. I know people will say they are different than what I said, if I ate meat I would be the same as you.
The point still stands that a lot of people are like that and would think eating a dog or a cat abhorrent.

Tal.Aldarion is right, my only point is I think it's takes strenght to be someone like Tal.Aldarion on this issue, the argument is clear and rational. Some of us don't have the strength of character to live it. We should be honest and humble about that.

Thank you Tim, it was the hardest thing I have ever done, especially with me hating 99% of food, I practically didn't eat for a few weeks after I made my decision. It made me happy in the end.

Cardinal

Tim Robbins wrote:

Sorry for butting in here, but I am going to have stand up for PDN here.
You give out about his logic and then use the above rhetoric:
What is the "real world", why are his morals "archaic"? This is far from a alogical argument Cardinal.

If one is a believer in God, I think one can construct a rational argument for eating animals in that one can use as an axiom, there is something extra special about us, we are created in Gods own image or something like that and construct some ethical argument for it being ok to eat an animal. That axiom is unavailable to me.

I suppose that would be true enough if god existed. However, the belief in god is not logical and any arguments constructed on that belief are also illogical.

Tar.Aldarion

Tim Robbins wrote:

There is an element of subjectivity to morality but it is not immune from reason.
We can look at evidence, construct an argument, use logic and arrive at some sort of conclusion. We can look at consequences etc.
We can use philosophical arguments. e.g. Kant's what would happen if everybody does this?

The moral ethical argument for being a Veggie is valid and sound as far as I am concerned.

I would be of the opinion that your logic etc are so intertwined with subjectivity that it is really one and the same to you. It all just forms your personality, who you are and then it is you and that opinion that make that decision. We can use logic and rational argument all we want but if we truly feel at heart that something is wrong or right, do you think logic can change our minds?

Kudos to you then.

I couldn't picture life without meat - I hate vegetables. I know my quality of life would be greatly diminished if I couldn't enjoy a meal. Whether that clouds my mind as to the moral question is another thing.

I hate vegetables too, take what you hate and multiply it by a thousand to get me, the pickiest eater there is.
I was of exactly the same opinion of you as a teen and it took years for me to take a step, you ask yourself what you will eat? Will I ever enjoy a meal again? I started to cook and try new foods.
I went for a week only allowed to eat foods I had never eaten before. That was interesting, anyway, I'm just blathering. Thank god I found Quorn.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

I would genuinely like to get some insights from atheists as to how you form a moral code without a belief in God. This is not an argument, so anyone wanting to hurl insults or pick fights should find another thread. Please note that I am not suggesting that atheists lack morality or ethics, I am just curious as to how you reach them.

Let's take the field of medical experimentation. I can understand fully an atheist who believes that it is wrong to conduct any animal experimentation whatsoever. The reasoning that it is wrong to mutilate another living creature, irrespective of any good that may result, certainly requires no belief in God.

I can also understand (while obviously violently opposing) the reasoning of someone like Mengele who experimented on humans. If he saw no essential difference between a Jew and a chimpanzee, then it would be acceptable to him to experiment on either.

Now, I suspect a good proportion of the atheists who post here would, under some conditions, support medical experimentation on animals. I also suspect (and fervently hope!) that the same people would be opposed to medical experimentation on humans. I want to understand why. Is it just a gut feeling? Does one just feel right while the other feels wrong? If human beings are simply just another species of mammal (rather than a category apart, as I believe) then what is the difference?

I would appreciate your responses.

PDN

The answer, which will upset the more sensitive of the religious brigade, is evolution.

It is natural selection that has led to the emotional sensation we have in regards to a "moral code".

Morality can be viewed and is measureably, and emotional reaction based on an individuals ability to empathise with another life form. This is the reason why some people are more "moral" than other, thought, perhaps, it is more correct to say that they are more empathetic.

Being empathetic makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because ofhte mechanism of implied reciprocation (If I am good to you then you will be good to me). We may be able to cognitively set this aside and be cruel by choice but the underlying mechanism remains.

Tim Robbins

Cardinal wrote:

I suppose that would be true enough if god existed. However, the belief in god is not logical and any arguments constructed on that belief are also illogical.

Exactly. PDN is capable of deriving a valid logical argument, with an axiom on lines of God created humans...
but it doesn't mean it is sound argument even if it is logically valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

The answer, which will upset the more sensitive of the religious brigade, is evolution.

It is natural selection that has led to the emotional sensation we have in regards to a "moral code".

Morality can be viewed and is measureably, and emotional reaction based on an individuals ability to empathise with another life form. This is the reason why some people are more "moral" than other, thought, perhaps, it is more correct to say that they are more empathetic.

Being empathetic makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because ofhte mechanism of implied reciprocation (If I am good to you then you will be good to me). We may be able to cognitively set this aside and be cruel by choice but the underlying mechanism remains.

I don't think the idea of an atheist believing in evolution is going to upset anyone who is prepared to post on a Atheist & Agnostic forum. I would be rather disappointed and upset if any of you didn't believe in evolution. But I like the subtle way you use the word "brigade" in a slightly pejorative way to refer to religious people. I must remember that one next time I want to be annoying.

I find the empathy thesis interesting, because it appears to say there is no such thing as morality per se. If Mengele had no empathy towards the gypsy children he experimented on, then would that mean that his actions were not, in fact, immoral?

Being empathetic makes sense from an evolutionary perspective because ofhte mechanism of implied reciprocation (If I am good to you then you will be good to me). We may be able to cognitively set this aside and be cruel by choice but the underlying mechanism remains.

It is extremely unlikely that Mengele, or any of the Nazis, ever imagined a scenario where a gypsy could have enough power to do good or harm to him. After all, they sincerely believed that the Third Reich would last for a thousand years and the gypsies would be wiped out as a race. So, from an evolutionary perspective, Mengele's actions were very moral and designed to further the survival of the fittest (the Aryan race).

Cardinal

Thanks Tim. I wasn't fully aware of the meaning of "sound". A useful addition to my vocabulary.

PDN

Cardinal wrote:

I suppose that would be true enough if god existed. However, the belief in god is not logical and any arguments constructed on that belief are also illogical.

And that, of course, is an entirely different argument that has been gone over many times both here and in the Christianity forum.

The Atheist

The Atheist wrote:

Bluewolf it's really not healthy to eat roadkill...

tarry wrote:

Again Bluey, as I said to The Atheist, there are of course exceptions to a rule. I know people will say they are different than what I said, if I ate meat I would be the same as you.

ok ok I just like mentioning my duckies are you happy now =(

Cardinal

PDN wrote:

I find the empathy thesis interesting, because it appears to say there is no such thing as morality per se. If Mengele had no empathy towards the gypsy children he experimented on, then would that mean that his actions were not, in fact, immoral?

I wouldn't like to rely on empathy to fully explain morality, but you've hit on something important there, i.e. that there is no such thing as morality. I think this is a fairly common misinterpretation of atheistic views on a number of things i.e. that because there is no absolute morality, that there is no morality at all; or that because there is not absolute meaning to the universe, that there is no meaning at all.

I'd argue that this is not the case. These things need to be seen in context, often in a naturalist or humanist context. In my opinion, it is up to us to decide what meaning is, up to us to decide what morality is. I also think that neither concept is reduced in importance by coming from man and not from a god.

PDN

Cardinal wrote:

I wouldn't like to rely on empathy to fully explain morality, but you've hit on something important there, i.e. that there is no such thing as morality. I think this is a fairly common misinterpretation of atheistic views on a number of things i.e. that because there is no absolute morality, that there is no morality at all; or that because there is not absolute meaning to the universe, that there is no meaning at all.

I'd argue that this is not the case. These things need to be seen in context, often in a naturalist or humanist context. In my opinion, it is up to us to decide what meaning is, up to us to decide what morality is. I also think that neither concept is reduced in importance by coming from man and not from a god.

As I stated in my OP:

Please note that I am not suggesting that atheists lack morality or ethics, I am just curious as to how you reach them.

Schuhart

PDN wrote:

I find the empathy thesis interesting, because it appears to say there is no such thing as morality per se. If Mengele had no empathy towards the gypsy children he experimented on, then would that mean that his actions were not, in fact, immoral?

IMHO, a potential outcome of atheism is that there is no such thing as morality and all we do is develop common rules to manage our inevitable dealings with each other. But I haven't reached that as a final conclusion yet, as I'm open to some objective basis being shown.

Leaving aside the varieties of interpretations of the Bible for a moment, and just taking morality as a black box, clearly a theist can say that God created morality and put it into the Universe just as he determined the cosmic variables that ultimately caused planets to form and life to emerge. But an atheist, IMHO, can only see morality as a human invention. It's something we have created and are imposing on the world - whether we impose an idea of vegetarianism or we're comfortable with the idea of eating meat, its basically a human creation that we're applying not any cosmic norm that exists outside of the heads of our species.

Hivemind187

In relation to he OP and to the comments regarding Joseph Mengele (and for those of you who would be familiar with your history, his wife).

There is a psychiatric explanation for why Jospeh Mengele was capable of comiting the atrocities he did: He was a sociopath incapable of empathising with other humans. There is evidence to suggest this as much research into the man indicates he had a prediliction for autopsy from an early age (though this maybe construed as conjecture).

In terms of morality, the analogy of Mengele and his vivisection of gypsies, jews, gays, poles and myriad other ethnicities and minorities (used in the political sense), is largely evidence of the evolution case since, as a sociopath, he was incapable of empathising with other living creatures or as viewing them as anything but objects existing solely for his own purposes.

Had Mengele been truly capable of empathising with another human being he would have found his experiments difficult if not impossible on a physical and emotional level. this can be taken not as proof, but certainly as supporting evidence of the evolutionary development of morals based on inherited empathic responses.

Mengele was also a Roman Catholic (not that this really makes much of a difference either way).

Tim Robbins

Cardinal wrote:

Thanks Tim. I wasn't fully aware of the meaning of "sound". A useful addition to my vocabulary.

No worries, in fact it's a very good example of the difference between something being logically sound and logically valid.
I find this issue one of the more difficult issues in atheism and gets avoided by many atheists. It reminds me of the way many Christians avoid difficult question of why do kids get cancer if there is an all loving, all knowing, all caring God?
No argument there from analogy there PDN, They are just both difficult questions whatever side of the fence you are on.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I don't think the idea of an atheist believing in evolution is going to upset anyone who is prepared to post on a Atheist & Agnostic forum. I would be rather disappointed and upset if any of you didn't believe in evolution. But I like the subtle way you use the word "brigade" in a slightly pejorative way to refer to religious people. I must remember that one next time I want to be annoying.

I find the empathy thesis interesting, because it appears to say there is no such thing as morality per se. If Mengele had no empathy towards the gypsy children he experimented on, then would that mean that his actions were not, in fact, immoral?

It is extremely unlikely that Mengele, or any of the Nazis, ever imagined a scenario where a gypsy could have enough power to do good or harm to him. After all, they sincerely believed that the Third Reich would last for a thousand years and the gypsies would be wiped out as a race. So, from an evolutionary perspective, Mengele's actions were very moral and designed to further the survival of the fittest (the Aryan race).

A few points PDN:

1. I don't belief in evolution, just like I don't believe E = MC pow 2, I "tentatively accept" both. If evidence manifests which falsifies either, I will change my opinion. Many atheists adopt this stance.

2. The term "survival of the fittest" is used a lot by Christians and non Christians when discussing Darwinism. The phrase is not used once in 'The origin of species'. More importantly, it fails to accurate descrive natural selection, as it omits the mutation of genes part and is thus misleading.

If you are using it in an argument in evolution theory, it is not accurate, it could also be used in Lamarkism for example another scientific theory now thrown out.

3. In evolution theory, the selection is done by nature not by people. When people make the decisions of what survives and control breeding it is usually referred to as artificial selction.

4. The validity of Evolution theory does not confer the morality of it.
In fact, many atheists and evolution accepting Christians would be quite concerned for the weak. The concept of the welfare state for example, or savig endangered species for example.

For me evolution theory is an explaination of how we got here, doesn't necessarily mean it is where we should derive our ethics from. Philosophy is better for that.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

It is extremely unlikely that Mengele, or any of the Nazis, ever imagined a scenario where a gypsy could have enough power to do good or harm to him. After all, they sincerely believed that the Third Reich would last for a thousand years and the gypsies would be wiped out as a race. So, from an evolutionary perspective, Mengele's actions were very moral and designed to further the survival of the fittest (the Aryan race).

Just a point,

Evolution is neither moral nor immoral. It is a natural process (it would be like commenting on the morality of a lava flow, or a river flow)

Evolution has designed our moral and emotional systems. There are evolutionary reasons why we feel certain ways about certain things, why we have emotions such as guilty shame empathy etc. That doesn't really mean that what is good for evolution is moral. For a start "Good for evolution" is an impossible determination, and is nearly always biased.

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote:

Just a point,

Evolution is neither moral nor immoral. It is a natural process (it would be like commenting on the morality of a lava flow, or a river flow)

Evolution has designed our moral and emotional systems. There are evolutionary reasons why we feel certain ways about certain things, why we have emotions such as guilty shame empathy etc. That doesn't really mean that what is good for evolution is moral. For a start "Good for evolution" is an impossible determination, and is nearly always biased.

Yes. Agreed.

Further PDN you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that Menegles actions were cognitively designed to benefit his view of society rather than to fulfil a sadistic curiosity. He was making a "decision" to do those things but I doubt his decision was based on a evolutionary imperitive, rather it was the lack of an aspect of evolved psychology that allowed him to be able to do the terrible things he did.

Schuhart

Hivemind187 wrote:

Further PDN you seem to have jumped to the conclusion that Menegles actions were cognitively designed to benefit his view of society rather than to fulfil a sadistic curiosity. He was making a "decision" to do those things but I doubt his decision was based on a evolutionary imperitive, rather it was the lack of an aspect of evolved psychology that allowed him to be able to do the terrible things he did.

Are we focussing too much on one individual? Surely the point about Mengele is that he was part of a movement with an ideology that some humans were more equal than others, to quote a phrase.

Similarly, do we argue that slave-owning was just a mental aberration by a few individuals or do we accept that at one time it was just perfectly permissable. Is bull-fighting or fox hunting evidence of metal aberrations or simply an example of a society that sets a different arbitrary limit on what is permissable?

Hivemind187

Schuhart wrote:

Are we focussing too much on one individual? Surely the point about Mengele is that he was part of a movement with an ideology that some humans were more equal than others, to quote a phrase.

Similarly, do we argue that slave-owning was just a mental aberration by a few individuals or do we accept that at one time it was just perfectly permissable. Is bull-fighting or fox hunting evidence of metal aberrations or simply an example of a society that sets a different arbitrary limit on what is permissable?

You are equating a human being to a fox here. For some people, empathising with an animal is very easy, for others they consider them to be food or a source of fun. In a certain sense the latter person is a more sociopathic person, this does not mean that they are disfunctional however, only that they are less inclined to naturally empathise with the objectified creature.

As for the issue of slavery. Its a slightly more tricky question in that it is human nature to exploit others if possible, it means that while they are doing the work you can devote more energy into growing larger and reproducing more - a simple evolutionary crane. The arguments that the enslaved people (usually the black man) were inferiror or somehow "sub-human" is little more than cognitive rationalisation of a social situation. Along the line of "all black men I have ever seen have been slaves and I have been their master, therefore they are inferior and I am superior, therefore I have the right to do as I pelase with them".

While I'm, not suggesting that this is in anyway a definitive answer, it is intended to illustrate my point. It is society making conscious the evolutionary imperitives.

I agree that slavery is a repellent concept to our modern thinking but it does not mean it did not have its uses and it does not mean that religion had any hand in guiding the moral shift away from slavery towards emancipation and equality. Intellectual decompression did that, education and the development of societies that did not require a slave race to function did that.

Hivemind187

Schuhart wrote:

Are we focussing too much on one individual? Surely the point about Mengele is that he was part of a movement with an ideology that some humans were more equal than others, to quote a phrase.

And .. .um ... yes. Perhaps we are focussing on that particular fascist git a little too much.