Psycho-Babble Social | for general support | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

Re: Animal Rights » AuntieMel

Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 14:56:28

In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2005, at 9:55:40

> I'm confused about one bit of your argument. On one hand you argue that getting the nutrients you don't get from meat by taking supplements is more moral.

I would argue that we are morally obliged to refrain from eating meat and dairy, yes.

> On the other hand you express a distrust of getting anything useful from supplements.

Oh yes. But that isn't part of my argument. I am not a nutritionist. That bit is just my ignorant opinion! That isn't related to my argument for animals being part of the moral community (which means we are morally obliged to take their interests into account).

> So you do seem to at least acknowledge that there are nutrients that humans need that aren't (in a practical manner) available in a veg diet.

Well... It seems that the following is true:
IF you buy into the American RDA as a measure of what nutrients and what amounts of nutrients humans *need* THEN you cannot get all the nutrients you need in either a meat eating or a vegetarian / vegan diet.
If that is so then it would follow that everyone would have to take suppliments to get the nutrients they *need*.

My issue is with the American RDA.
I would like to see how the English RDA compares.
Apparantly according to the English RDA it is possible to get all the nutrients one needs from a balanced diet (both vegetarian / vegan and meat eating). So I would like to know why the American RDA is supposed to be superior to the English RDA.

> So, an ethical question. Is it moral to deny that source of needed nutrients to children?

If we have fairly good reason to suppose that we do in fact need suppliments in order to remain healthy then we would be morally obliged to provide that for dependants yes. (I wonder if members of other species need suppliments in order to remain healthy too... We might be morally obliged to provide them for our pets as well...)

But given the differences between the American and English RDA's the jury still seems to be out...

> Does everything have to be either/or? Does eating people *always* have to be wrong? Should the Donners have just starved because of morality?

If you are a Kantian then yes. Things are either morally acceptable or morally unacceptable. Black and White. Utilitarianism allows for there to be exceptions. If we actually needed to eat animal flesh in order to survive (if we actually needed to eat human flesh in order to survive) then it would be senseless to say that it is morally unacceptable. Ought implies can. If we are unable to do something then it is silly to say one should do it.

But our daily practices of experimenting on animals and eating meat and dairy are what I am trying to look at. For us peoples in urban environments who do not need to eat meat or dairy in order to be healthy.

Whether we need suppliments (all of us) is a seperate issue.

>Who defines morality?

Who decided what we should and shouldn't do?
Well. People usually have intuitions as to what is right and wrong. Then the idea is to try to provide reasons - to provide a rational argument for why something is right and wrong. The idea is to develop the best possible argument for something being right, and the best possible argument for something being wrong. To try to show the flaws in the arguments. To counter the points. To fix them up in light of critisism etc.

After looking at the best possible arguments from both sides then you can make an informed decision as to what you think. What you believe to be right and wrong. We can only do the best that we can do. Maybe there is an objective morality. Maybe we still get it wrong. But at least we can say with good conscience 'I took it seriously and I did my best to be a good person'.

Quite often people change their mind after looking at the arguments.

Does that help?

 

Thread

 

Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post


Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.

 

Start a new thread

 
Google
dr-bob.org www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for
in

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Social | Framed

poster:alexandra_k thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/466019.html