Dear AFS, we have had several people interested in this on-going discussion that have been unsuccessful in locating it on the blog. For all who wish to add future comments, could you please do so under this new header? Thank you!
-M
_____________________________________________________
rnnyhoff said...
The Augusta Freethought Society is a great addition to the culture of Augusta. Perhaps unwelcome by a majority of citizens in the CSRA, it is, nonetheless, a vital outlet for sharing and providing viewpoints that, in my opinion, are held by more individuals in our community than a secular humanist might expect.06 January, 2009 10:53
mikeledo said...
This really wasn't what I had in mind for a forum, but here goes. Debates. I used to love them. Watch, them, participate in them, on line, via mail, or in person. However, it gets old after a while. The same old hack lines and the same results. Eventually, the Christian loses the intellectual debate (while claiming victory) then retreats to their corner, wih their fingers in the ears and scream "FAITH!" at the top of their lungs to block out any rational discussion. What 2,000 years of debate has boiled dowm to is that religious belief is a matter of faith. This of course is what godless people say all along. The best debates are the ones that I lose. That forces me to rethink my position.
06 January, 2009 18:24
rnnyhoff said...
So like a scientist, mikeledo, to describe your "best debates" as the one you lose. People mired in their own, set, immovable belief system are truly the losers. This life of ours is far too shaded in myriad grays to allow one point-of-view to dominate. It is the individual who hypothesizes, investigates, encourages others, and is open to dialogue and difference that is the true seeker of meaning.
08 January, 2009 08:00
miles said...
Mike...sorry we don't have any Christian zealots to debate against at the moment. Perhaps we could open an internal dialogue, and here's the topic: ATHEISM AND VEGANISM AS BEDFELLOWS. Let me preface this first by recognizing that being an atheist and being moral are not equivocal. However, I suspect that most of us would claim to be moral individuals. Now, with that having been said, HOW CAN YOU BE AN ATHEIST AND NOT ALSO BE VEGAN? I would further extend this out to any members of the UU Church - in particular, the upholding of the 7th value which follows: "Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." This statement, and claiming a non-vegan position are mutually exclusive values.
08 January, 2009 19:20
augusta freethought society said...
I would argue that atheism and veganism are not organic bedfellows because veganism is a moral choice and atheism is simply a statement of non-belief. However, atheists that are self-reflective about ethics have the unique charge of constructing morality based on what tends to be in the best interest of themselves and others (unlike the religious, who get their morals from books and preachers), and when they include all species as "others", then it follows that they should be vegan (particularly when most animal products in modern times are FAR from cruelty-free). Your reference to the 7th UU value as incompatible with a non-vegan lifestyle is probably true in a pure sense in modern times, unless a meat-eater/dairy consumer goes to great lengths to consume animal products that are cruelty-free, which is unlikely and quite a difficult task. So, as moral humans (atheist, agnostic, humanist, theists, whateverists), we should educate ourselves on factory farming and learn the truth about where our animal flesh, dairy, and eggs come from, as well as the amount of cruelty that we support with our dollars when we purchase these items.
09 January, 2009 10:35
mikeledo said...
I remember when the Atlanta Freethought Sociey had a debate, "Is God Necessary for Morality?" I thought a more interesting question would be, "Is God Necessary for Immorality?"
Morality is generaly dictated by a religious or legal code of somekind, tenets which a majority of humans agree upon in a particular place and time. To me a "freethinker" by definition would ignore such codes.
I personally have no problem killing animals to make my life easier, as long as I am the one not doing the killing. In fact the only reason many animals are alive is because humans bred them to be eaten or worn.
Atheists are not all moral, like Miles stated. Stalin, I would claim, was on the dark side of the force. Since one cannot connect morality to atheism, it would be impossible to connect it to vegan. I got better things to do than to care about how chickens are treated right before we kill them. We do less for humans.
10 January, 2009 19:27
miles said...
Mike, your statements are contradictory. You state "I personally have no problem killing animals to make my life easier, as long as I am the one not doing the killing." I think what you meant to say was, "I have no problem with animals being killed, as long as I am not the one doing the killing." Also, just out of curiosity, why would you think that the destruction of animals for our use makes life any easier? It necessarily complicates things. Consuming only plants and wearing only plant fibers cuts the middle man out. With a cow, you have to grow the plants, to feed the cow, to get the leather. Why not just grow the plants?
"In fact the only reason many animals are alive is because humans bred them to be eaten or worn." Really? show me any evidence that this is true. Animal husbandry and domestication has allowed us to accumulate large numbers of animals that already existed, but these creatures existence isn't owed to us.
"Since one cannot connect morality to atheism, it would be impossible to connect it to vegan." This is a non-sequitur, and it's not true. Under which circumstance is the reduction of suffering immoral?
"I got better things to do than to care about how chickens are treated right before we kill them. We do less for humans." Mike, you finally got something right, "We do less for humans." This is exactly why, as a species, we are unconcerned with the lives of non-human creatures and are able to look at these beings and quip "Well so what, they're just animals"...an axiomatic sentiment by the way that non-vegans share with the Nazis at Auschwitz.
13 January, 2009 00:24
miles said...
Oh, and one more aside: I don't think that the question "Is God Necessary for Immorality?" is interesting at all. You already answered your own question when you brought up Stalin.
"Morality is generaly dictated by a religious or legal code of somekind, tenets which a majority of humans agree upon in a particular place and time." No. Morality is based on the principles and values of a given individual. Morals are not arrived at by a democratic process. After all, the majority of Bronze Age, Middle-Eastern goat herders believed that is was acceptable to stone and flog your children to death if they disobeyed their parents. Punishments can be enforced by groups claiming morality (might makes right...there it is again). I think you are getting LAW and MORALITY confused.
13 January, 2009 01:18
mikeledo said...
I happen to like the taste of meat. It has nothing to do with energy consumption or cutting out the middleman.
Animals are bred and raised on farms to be eaten. I don't know how to prove that Miles. I assumed everyone knew that.
You claim Stalin was immoral. How do you make that judgement? What says he was mmoral? A legal code or a religious creed?
Laws are derived from the morality of a community. In many ways they are the same.
You connect Vegan to morality, and morality to atheism. That is non-sequitur. So is it okay to eat an animal that hasn't suffered? How about road kill? Eggs haven't even been fertized. What is immoral with eating them? The problem with vegans is that hey have created their own religion of animal worship.
13 January, 2009 16:54
miles said...
Mike, are we the only people on here...or is our pissing contest not engaging enough? Who knows?
Anyway. So you like the taste of meat, and you don't mind that animals were killed so that you can consume them. O.K. Would you eat your dog? Would you knowingly eat any dog? Would you eat a horse burger? Would you eat panda nuggets or bonobo bacon? Do you think there is anything reprehensible about setting cats on fire or dog fighting (a la Michael Vick)? If you honestly don't have an issue with consuming any other non-human animal, would you have an issue if we found an isolated population of Neanderthals, bred them on factory farms and then packaged them up for our dinner? I just have a hard time understanding the hypocrisy of the standard american diet. So many people will protest the clearing of the rainforest and the decimation of the oceans but then turn around and eat a surf 'n' turf combo meal over their lunch break.
You're right, animals are raised on farms to be eaten. I misunderstood you original comment. I thought you were saying that the only reason that cows and pigs, etc. exist is because we basically saved them from wild. I apologize for the confusion.
When did I claim Stalin was immoral? You said he was on the "dark side". I think YOU were making the claim that he was immoral. But, for the record, I do think various aspects of his career were immoral...that whole genocide thing. I make that judgement based on the immense suffering he caused to others. The notion that causing unwanted suffering in others is immoral is outside of legal codes and religious creeds. There is nothing illegal about causing suffering, and albeit, there are certainly religious notions that causing suffering is not morally sound, the morality of inflicting such suffering exists independent of the religion that propounds it.
I don't think I connected atheism with morality. I believe I qualified that from the outset: "Let me preface this first by recognizing that being an atheist and being moral are not equivocal." Your last statement is conditional. "Is it okay to eat an animal that hasn't suffered." No, because you are still exploiting the animal for your own selfish benefit. Is it okay to have sex with a woman who is braindead? Please say "no". "Is it okay to eat roadkill?" I don't know, did you intentionally run the animal over, or was it killed ahead of time. Would you actually eat road kill? If not, then that question is mute. The immorality with eggs comes not from the eggs themselves, but the manner in which the eggs were collected. If you have no idea how eggs are collected, you should read-up on battery-cage hens. Much of the vegan side of this issue distills down to exploitation. You wouldn't want to be exploited Mike, so why do you think these animals want to be exploited. As an atheist, by definition, you concede that this life and this planet (at least for now) are the only ones that we have been afforded. Acknowledging the fleeting and ephemeral nature of life, why do so many atheists not recognize that every creature on this earth is unique and equipped with their own agendas. Because we exist, we necessarily are going to have an impact upon the globe in one way or another. Part of the beauty of being a vegan is knowing that I am at least in some small way helping to reducing my inevitable impact of my surroundings and all who share it with me. I honestly don't know how such an selfless stance can be criticized, and yet, you found a way to do it Mike.
"The problem with vegans is that hey have created their own religion of animal worship."
P.S., don't ever associate me with the "r" word.
20 January, 2009 22:01
anonymous said...
In my opinion the Mike/Miles atheist/vegan debate is just silly. There is no logical link between atheism and veganism. In fact there is no logical link between atheism and anything. Atheism stands alone as a lack of belief--we don't beleive in theism--we don't believe in God. Beyond that we atheists don't necessarly have anything in common, including veganism or a common moral standard. I suspect some atheists have a personal morality that almost mirrors what has been called "Christian morality" while others of us approach absolute hedonism. I'm pretty much of a hedonist and unlike Miles I eat meat every day. Also unlike Mike I have many times killed what I ate.
When Miles says "HOW CAN YOU BE AN ATHEIST AND NOT BE A VEGAN" he links atheism and veganism and seems to imply that I should give up meat-eating or atheism. That, of course, won't happen because it is not necessary--the two things are really totally unrelated.
If Miles wants to argue vociferously for veganism, he should do so as an individual not as an atheist. As an atheist he shouldn't try to bind his lifestyle choices on the rest of us. We get enough of that from our Christian neighbors.
24 January, 2009 00:33
miles said...
Dear Anonymous,
You have made a very good point - "we atheists don't necessarily have anything in common..."
This fact is what many theists don't understand. Atheism has no central philosophy, their are no rules, no dogma, we do not have seven principles which we try to affirm or promote (e.g., UU Church), there is no moral code by which we live. I personally do not think that atheism and morality are linked (I made this qualification from the outset). Thinking about it a bit more, I suppose one could argue that someone could be a non-ethical vegan, or that someone could be a vegan and not support animal rights, i.e., they might be vegan simply due to allergies (milk, honey, eggs, seafood), and/or they don't like the taste of meat. I have yet to meet a vegan where this was really the case, but it is not all-together impossible.
The "link" that I am insinuating between veganism and atheism is not an absolute...it is more of a question for others to satisfy my own curiosity. I am certainly not implying that anyone should give up atheism (that's not possible since you don't get to choose what you believe), and although I would prefer that people didn't consume animal products, I am only questioning their reasons for doing so - I am not implying that they should stop.
When I promote veganism, I do do so as an individual. My lack of belief in a God or gods never comes into play. Actually, when theists ask me why I became vegan, my usual answer is that the Book of Genesis says that we should be vegan, and that I am trying to live a lifestyle consistent and in harmony with the Earth prior to the Fall of Man. When it comes to pass that I am an atheist, I never link my convictions to my food choices. This topic is merely a thought-exercise. And why is this argument silly? Is it any more silly or insipid than posting opinions on a community forum without claiming authorship?
All I am trying to show, is that I find it interesting how similar the mindset of atheists and vegans are - at least many that I know (not ALL). Many of the reasons people have for being atheist are similar to the reasons that people give for begin vegan.
For example: Americans tend be follow a Christian faith. While people in India tend to be Hindu. Indoctrination often follows geographic patterns. Various beliefs separated by natural barriers (albeit our extensive globalization now allows for a ready mixture of ideas and beliefs). People do what they do because their culture has influenced them. People in America eat beef and pork for the most part because our parents ate beef and pork and fed it to us when we were growing up. Why do we cringe and joke about Asian cultures eating dogs and cats or the absurdity of starving Hindus worshipping cows. Filet-o-hound in all likelihood isn't any less tasty than sirloin, Islam isn't any less inane than the Aborigine Dreamtime, but how would you know unless you were able to think past your upbringing. Religion and Diet are cultural. If you were raised in another part of the world, your concepts of what is edible and what is believable would almost certainly be different.
My general curiosity is thus: if as an atheist, you are able to relieve yourself of the mental constraints of religion and to recognize the brainwashing effects that religion carries, how is it that you can't see that you only eat the food you do because these were the biased food choices of those who came before you and they have led you to think it is alright to eat such items. How can you not see that by supporting fishing industries and the beef and dairy industry you are contributing to the destruction of our planet. And, if nothing else, with overwhelming evidence that animal products in our food are generally not as healthy (or healthy at all), why would you do that yourself. Why would you knowingly ingest food items that can damage your body and shorten your life span (especially as an atheist who doesn't believe that there is another life after this one)? If we only have one life and one planet, why wouldn't you want to make the most of it? I am not suggesting that people become vegan, I am only saying that IF you really do care about your health and the environment, why wouldn't you take the path of least resistance to augment both?
As I mentioned at our group meeting, my aim is to promote rationalism. Atheism is only the topic. My rationalism however does extend and must necessarily extend to my food choices. Similar to religious beliefs, I have yet to hear a rational, well thought out justification for why not being a vegan is a better option than being vegan. Any and all reasons that I have heard are similar to the reasons people give for being theists - often hypocritical and usually non-objectifiable and entirely based on cultural brainwashing and personal experience (e.g., meat just tastes good, God speaks to me,etc).
24 January, 2009 08:16
miles said...
One additional afterthought: in regards to the anonymous poster's comment, if this on-going debate between Mike and myself is in fact silly, then PLEASE open a new post (if you have access on this blog) or at least offer ideas for topics that you would like to have discussed. Mike and I obviously have a difference of opinion concerning the current topic, but at least Mike has an opinion about something - ANYTHING, and I respect that. Perhaps there are only 4 or 5 people looking at this blog, in which case, my romantic notions of hotly debated open-forum discussions are wasted. However, if there are others checking out these threads, then please take this opportunity to disagree, refute, contend, argue, debate,enlighten, supplement confirm or simply comment on what is being discussed.
24 January, 2009 09:32
david said...
Hey- here's another perspective about being a vegan or not and an atheist. I was once a vegan but still ate eggs, dairy and fish. I was also a member of PETA. Unfortunately, I have restless legs syndrome and celiac disease. The diet I was on made the RLS far worse because whatever causes severe primary RLS also affects how ferritin is absorbed. I had to make a choice between being an ethical (or so I thought) wreck- or not. Atheism really had nothing to do with it as I have those diseases regardless of what I belive. I also better understood why humans evolved to be omnivores, and how genetic issues with health are poorly understood by people fortunate enough not to have such issues to deal with 24/7. So I chose quality of life and began eating meat again. The RLS got a little better but I still had to go on meds to get any sleep at night.
I now support ethical animal use in research. Am I selfish? Absolutely. I do enjoy getting a full night's sleep. I'm also less judgemental about choices. These choices, whether about beleif in the supernatural, diet or intimacy are up to each individual and not the business of churh, state or those who would inflict their beliefs on others.
24 January, 2009 11:22
anonymous said...
My previous post as "Anonymous" was not an attempt to be silly or insipid or even conceal my identity, but an expedient. My post was made at midnight thirty, I had a 6:00 AM committment the next day, and one cannot post a comment without creating a profile. Anonymous is the quickest profile to create.
Check out the website donramon.net and all identity questions will be answered. If you check out the website you will also discover that I have no inherent objection to silliness--almost everything on the website is silly.
The vegan/meateater debate is a perfectly fine topic for discussion. Linking veganism to atheism is not. Saying, or even implying, that atheists should be vegans is very much like the, "What would Jesus Do" that we've all heard. In each case it is irrelevant to almost any issue, hence silly. So have your debate, just don't frame it in an atheist context.
As for my personal contribution to the discussion, I did not evolve to the top of the food chain in order to eat vegetation. I'm a hedonist. I like meat and the fact that I like meat is sufficient justification for me to eat it. That's the way we hedonists are. If you want to debate the merits of hedonism, that's a whole new ballgame.
Regarding opinions--I have opinions about almost everything. Most of them, however, are not worth serious debate. You have yours and I have mine. Mostly I don't care about yours unless you try to force them on me.
Other than that--can't we just be friends?
24 January, 2009 12:14
seacoast said...
I think veganism and atheism are two insights along the same road toward enlightenment.
I think the Atheist insight is a realization, whether arrived at early or far along the life path, that the archaic view of spirituality is not a self truth. Free Thinkers, fraternal twin to the Atheist, are no so resolute, and are curious about how the uinverse realy works. They are constantly exploring and comtemplating information from sources. No longer inhibited by religious and false spiritual boundaries, they fearless degest all information.
I think that the Vegan/Vegetarian insight is one where the idividual feels that the sanctity of life extends to all non plant species. Now having a greater degree of awareness, they are able to share empathy with other species that we share our universe with.
Since I am both, I know that they can be compatible with each other. It happens only when the two tributaries converge the life path.
Ultimately it is about Ego. When one can detatch from Egotistical viewpoints, logic and reason prevail. One desires escape from the mental prison of religion and one whose appreciation for other life forms finds alternative means for sustanence.
If you are either, you are doing something right. Lol, and that my view.
24 January, 2009 14:30
anonymous said...
Some thoughts on seacoast's posting--
"...the sanctity of life extends to all non plant species."
Sanctity is a curious term for an atheist to select. The definition of sanctity generally includes such terms as saintliness, holiness, sacred, etc., not terms generally advocated by an atheist to support his/her position. As Mike noted in an earlier posting, veganism seems to be supported with almost religious fervor.
"Since I am both[vegan and atheist?], I know they can be compatible with each other."
I know that too. However, since I have a granddaughter who is a Republican, a vegan, and one of the most committed Christians around, I realize that veganism and conservative Christianity are equally compatable. The basic fact is that veganism is not incompatable with atheism, but it is no more compatable with atheism than it is with Christianity and certainly veganism is not a necessary condition for atheism. So far I have seen no good argument to make veganism and atheism bedfellows.
"...they fearless[sic] degest[sic] all information."
I am as willing to digest all information as I am willing to digest animal flesh. I do reserve the right to reject faulty, poorly argued, poorly reasoned information.
"Ultimately it is about ego"
I don't know what the hell he is talking about.
Anonymous aka don@donramon.net
26 January, 2009 12:39
miles said...
Sorry, I have been away for a bit. This response is for David:
David, you noted that "I was once a vegan but still ate eggs, dairy and fish." That is not veganism. Vegans don't eat anything that comes from an animal. It would be similar to saying "I am completely faithful when it comes to my wife, but I still receive oral sex from other woman at my work". That's not fidelity.
Also, when you mentioned the following: "I have restless legs syndrome and celiac disease. The diet I was on made the RLS far worse because whatever causes severe primary RLS also affects how ferritin is absorbed". This has more to do with your ideas of what constitutes good nutrition and a proper diet than it does the particular lifestyle that you were trying to cater to. There are plenty of overweight vegans and there are plenty of world class athletes who are non-vegan. If you as an individual are making poor food choices, you can't blame it on the dietary label you have given yourself (incorrectly). If you don't know where to get iron in your everyday food, you can't blame veganism. Every doctor I know, and, as a doctor myself, I can personally say that I would never recommend nor have I ever heard it recommended that people should get more meat in their diet. There is no health benefit that a non-vegan diet can offer that is not also available to vegans (breast-feeding infants is perhaps an exception, but that is not really a vegan issue). Further, I run ultramarathons using only plants for fuel, and am more fit than pretty much everyone I know, so I think you would be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that a non-vegan diet is somehow superior to a vegan diet.
Next, you mention that "I also better understood why humans evolved to be omnivores". This really makes my skin crawl when people discuss evolution in such a colloquial parlance. 1) you make it sound like becoming omnivorous was premeditated and that humans somehow made a conscious effort to "evolve" physiology and anatomy capable of facilitating an omnivore diet. Did we also "evolve" a nose so that we could wear glasses? Just because we can eat an omnivorous diet doesn't mean that we evolved to do so. I am VERY curious to know what exactly it is about humans that you think has evolved to drive us towards an omnivorous diet. And, I am even more curious to know how it is that in the 12 years I spent in dental school and completing my Bachelor's and Master's degree in human evolution and cladistics I wasn't able to come to arrive at the same conclusions you did.
Further, If you disagree, then please tell me your thoughts on why it is that the vegan diet of the lowland silverback gorillas hasn't produced failure to thrive issues.
"So I chose quality of life and began eating meat again. The RLS got a little better but I still had to go on meds to get any sleep at night." So, in other words, eating meat really didn't produce any real, significant benefit to your pre-existing health condition. Perhaps you are not among the 20% or so of people with RLS that have issues with your ferritin levels? I don't know, that's probably better addressed by a gastroenterologists or your PCP, but it's just a thought.
I appreciate that you finally conclude at the end that you are indeed selfish. I don't know why people can't just acknowledge that from the outset? I eat Oreos because they taste good. That's it. I bake cake and cookies all the time - because they are tasty. That's it. It's offensive when people try to rationally defend an irrational position - whether it's food or religion. I agree with you David when you note that our choices are decided upon by the individual and would be best to not have them imposed on others. It should be noted that I am in no way trying to impose my convictions or principles on anyone else, all I want to know is, what is it that you believe and why...and what reason do you give for your beliefs? In a forum like this, we should feel free to criticize and contend the viewpoints of others.
Cheers,
-M
This is a reply to Don:
ReplyDeleteHedonism...hmmm. That would be a good topic to discuss. I don't know much about the topic however. I would like to hear your thoughts. From what I understand, and I might get this totally wrong, hedonism is concerned primarily (or only?) with actions that derive pleasure. If this is the case, I feel that hedonism has the potential to be a completely bankrupt endeavor. I personally don't object to pleasure, but I am more concerned with happiness. Pleasure is a bit too ephemeral and base for me to invest in. I find that happiness has a resonating effect on the rest of my life that pleasure is unable to compare with. For example, I get pleasure from eating cheese cake (by the way - I make a sick vegan cheese cake!), but so what, after the pleasure of eating it is gone, now what. I can't continually pursue pleasure the entire day, nothing would ever get done. However, I really hate running, but I get profound happiness from completing a marathon, or running a personal best time. Thoughts of my accomplishments continue to add to my happiness long after the fact. I like that.
What is it that draws you to hedonism? Personally, if someone tells me that they are a hedonist, I begin to draw conclusions (perhaps unfoundedly). For example, if someone who is out of shape makes a claim that they are a hedonist, I can't help but conclude that their hedonist label is little more than a transparent cover for just being lazy and constitutes a lack of discipline or resolve. I mean, any corpulent turd can use hedonism as an excuse for being unfit and having a poor diet. Similarly, any child molester can use hedonism as an excuse for their actions since it elicits pleasure - despite the perversity of the action.
I thought I made some good arguments for making atheism and veganism bedfellows. I suspect that "good" is however a subjective term, so what I think is a perfectly reasonable argument, might fall short for others. Certainly, just because you didn't arrive at the same conclusion that I did doesn't mean that I made a sound case for this discussion.
I feel that if you are atheist, you tend to think that this world and our time here is limited. With that in mind, why would you want to pollute and destroy it? If you are atheist, you don't think that we as humans were given special dominion over the creature of the Earth as appointed by God. If you are an ethical vegan/environmentalist, you also don't want to destroy and pollute the Earth. As an ethical vegan, you also don't feel that we have special dominion over the non-human animals that share the planet with us. Also, many of the religions I have studied and non-vegans I have spoken to seem hypocritical. For example, Christians have openly confessed that if they had in fact been born in India, or the Middle East, they would likely not be Christian. This is an admission to geographical, cultural indoctrination. American, non-vegans that I have spoken to will acknowledge that they find the idea of eating a dog or another human repulsive, and yet, this is common practice elsewhere in the world. So, if these American non-vegans had been raised elsewhere, these notions wouldn't be so repugnant. Isn't this also geographical cultural indoctrination? Also, many people will eat a cow, but not a horse. Why? They will eat a pig but not a dog. Why? Because they have been brainwashed by our culture (much in the same way that followers of religion have been brainwashed about their beliefs) that the animals on this side of the barnyard fence are o.k. to consume and these animals on the opposite side are not o.k. to consume. How can you eat turkey on thanksgiving, but have a parrot as a pet? That seems like an incredible disconnect. What I don't understand, is how do you decide which is o.k. to eat, and which in not o.k. to eat. I am convinced that the decision is not rational, it's emotional and unfounded. Eating a dog can't be any unhealthier than eating fat laden pork, so health reasons aren't the ultimate influence in the food choices of non-vegans. As a culture, we have been taught our opinions about food. Its the same with religion. You have been taught your opinion about the world. And, as a final comparison...I have yet to have anyone tell me a single thing that a non-secular lifestyle can offer than a secular lifestyle cannot. I have never heard a single benefit that religion provides that cannot also be achieved via secular means. I also have yet to hear one objectifiable positive aspect of a non-vegan diet that cannot be achieved through veganism. And yet, everyone knows that incorporating more fruits and vegetables into you diet has real, quantifiable benefits. I just don't understand why, with this knowledge, people wouldn't do everything in their power to be healthier. The only reasons I am given resort to culture, routine, ignorance concerning diet, apathy, and taste.
Of course I think these are good argument for linking atheism and veganism, but I realize not everyone does as well. For me, I would prefer to be correct about the decisions I make in life, and to do that, I can only use reason and logic as my guide. Atheism and veganism are both the reasonable and logical conclusions that follow when examined out to their rational endpoints in this world.
-M
Hedonism is a meaty topic for discussion. I wonder, however, if a vegan can discuss a "meaty" topic and still feel good about him/herself.
ReplyDeleteThere is a wide range of opinion on what constitutes hedonism. For purposes of this discussion I will limit myself to what I practice and will try to explain why I practice it.
Miles makes a distinction between pleasure and happiness that I believe to be purely semantic. Whatever gives me pleasure makes me happy and whatever makes me happy provides pleasure. I use the two terms relatively interchangeably. Pleasure can derive from a psychological state as well as from a physical state. It seems to me that Miles is equating happiness with a psychological state and pleasure with a physical state, which is an unnecessary dichotomy.
A hedonist lives life by trying to maximize net pleasure, i.e. pleasure minus pain. Miles claims to hate running (pain) but gets profound happiness from completing a marathon (pleasure). That sounds like my kind of hedonism. My guess is that Miles would not run if the pain (hate of running) exceeded the pleasure (profound happiness) elicited by completing a marathon.
In my case I derive more pleasure/happiness from being fit than from being unfit. It just feels better to be fit. Therefore, I go to the gym 5 days a week and walk/run (mostly walk) 3 to 4 miles on a treadmill and exercise against resistance for a total workout time of about 2 hours. Is this 2 hour period pure pleasure? Emphatically no! There is some pain involved. However, the net pleasure (the pleasure of being fit minus the pain of the workout) keeps me going to the gym.
Miles says, "if a person tells me that they are a hedonist, I begin to draw conclusions." Then he rambles on with a silly example about an unfit corpulent turd. Miles, what if an exceedingly fit person tells you he is a hedonist? What conclusions do you then draw? I have a dentist friend right here in Dothan who has never claimed to be a hedonist and who is terribly out of shape. He never exercises. He looked me right in the eyeball one day when we were fishing and told me that if he exercises he might live to be 104. Since he doesn't exercise he might live to be 103. There is no more of a necessary relationship between hedonism and fitness than there is between atheism and veganism. Find another example. Better still don't draw conclusions without being in possession of the necessary facts. That is not rational.
Miles says, "Any child molester can use hedonism as an excuse for their (sic) actions, since it (sic) elicits pleasure." (Mind your singulars and plurals) True, but so can a rapist, a voyeur, a sadist, a child pornographer--the list could really get quite long. So what? There are hedonists that have never done any of those things-- me for instance. None of those things would produce net pleasure for me. Just because some people are bad doesn't mean that they are hedonists nor does it mean that hedonists are necessarily bad. Also saying that you molested a child because you’re a hedonist is a piss poor defense in a court of law.
I am an atheist and I don't believe that humans are given special dominion over non-human species by god. I do believe that humans have evolved to pretty close to the top of the food chain and I'm going to enjoy that lofty position. It's a hedonistic thing to do.
I not only eat turkey for thanksgiving, but so does my parrot, Ralph. How's that for a disconnect? We're having chicken for dinner tonight. Ralph will eat that too. He loves poultry. He sits on my arm and eats every meal with the family. It's part of his cultural upbringing.
Finally Miles says, "I also have yet to hear one objectifiable positive aspect of a non-vegan diet that cannot also be achieved through veganism."
Try this. A vegan can never enjoy the profound pleasure of eating a thick juicy porterhouse steak grilled to rare perfection and served with a side of fungus (mushrooms). That is objectifiable and very positive. Ask mikeledo. He knows.
donramon.net
Reply to Don:
ReplyDeleteI disagree that happiness and pleasure are interchangeable terms. Unfortunately, you are confused as to the meanings of these words. Pleasure is unstable and carries the baggage of an exhaustive half-life. Pleasure, if continued indefinitely, will eventually become objectionable. In the cheesecake example I gave in my previous post, if I were to continue eating the cheesecake for hours on end, I would certainly begin to approach disgust for the taste and the feeling of over-satiation. Pleasure also has the potential to elicit negative thoughts and/or emotions. Going back to the cheesecake example, I have at times felt a twinge of regret for having indulged my pleasures. Even while experiencing the pleasure that saccharine is capable of producing, I simultaneously felt guilty. Given that pleasure can be had without happiness makes this more than merely semantics – despite your best efforts to believe otherwise, Don.
A quick note about what motivates my running efforts: I don’t hate running because of the physical pain, rather, I hate running because of the psychological effects that running for 5 straight hours has on my mind. I have never received pleasure from completing a marathon. Erasing the question mark that followed my thoughts (e.g., can I run 26.2 miles nonstop?) produced genuine and authentic happiness. Don states that, “A hedonist lives life by trying to maximize net pleasure, i.e. [sic] pleasure minus pain.” (Mind your punctuation – ohhhh, BURNED!). I don’t necessarily agree with that statement. There are people who take immense pleasure from the feeling of pain, e.g., masochists. These folks try to maximize pleasure by augmenting their pain. I have further contention with Don’s supposition that I would not run if the pain (hate of running) exceeded the pleasure (profound happiness) elicited by completing a marathon. I have in the past run marathons merely because I can…if for no other reason than the simple fact that my legs work and are capable of the task. I have a profound appreciation for not being bound to a wheelchair, or having any other of a number of debilitating conditions that would prohibit an active lifestyle. Much like reading a passing billboard with text on it…you don’t necessarily make a conscious or concerted effort to read the words, you just do. That’s how running is for me.
In the case that an exceedingly fit person tells me that he/she is a hedonist, I would want to know what flavor of hedonism had piqued that individual. My apologies, if I see someone who is overweight I conclude that they haven’t ironed out an appropriate diet plan or nutrition scheme. Of course thyroid and pituitary disorders are possible too. Similarly, if I see someone who is in stellar shape, I think that that person must invest time getting into shape. Genetics are a factor for both examples…naturally. And I’m sure Don has never had a preconceived notion about another individual before drawing a tentative conclusion about that person (said sarcastically). I don’t equate hedonism with being unfit. I also qualified that veganism and atheism are not necessarily linked – even though I find many parallels between the two ideas. I also qualified that my conclusions about unfit individuals who claim to be hedonists were perhaps unfounded, I made no certainty to this claim. Hedonism could be guided by sex, shoplifting, and even pain as I previously mentioned.
Don, do you seriously have a parrot? The comment I made regarding thanksgiving and a parrot was off the top of my head. Hmm, unexpected. Your parrot’s penchant for poultry does appear to be a disconnect…but it certainly would not be the first of it’s kind – Mad Cow Disease stands as an obvious testament to this. Prions bad, tofu good.
In your closing statement, Don, you make a final comment in which you remark, “A vegan can never enjoy the profound pleasure of eating a thick juicy porterhouse steak…That is objectifiable and very positive.” This is not accurate. The profound pleasure that one gets from eating a porterhouse steak is subjectifiable. It’s not objectifiably demonstrable or repeatable in all situations. I know not everyone has experienced the pleasure (ha!) of obtaining a Master of Science or medical degree, but the terms “objective” and “subjective” are not difficult concepts to get around. As an additional point, this remark would still be invalid (based on the incorrect reasoning put forth by Don) because I could easily claim that the profound pleasure of eating a porterhouse steak is objectifiably trumped 10 fold by the pleasure of eating a thick and juicy seitan burger.
Don, I don’t believe that you actually work out at the gym five days a week. If you are being sincere – ditch the treadmill man, there are some really great places in the area to run outside! I can give you links and directions if you are interested. Thank you for the reply, Don, the vegan/atheism topic was starting to feel like grapes dying on the vine.
Cheers,
-M
The New World Dictionary defines happy as, “having, showing, or causing a feeling of great pleasure, contentment, joy etc.. SYN.--happiness generally suggests a feeling of great pleasure, contentment etc..”
ReplyDeleteThe same dictionary defines pleasure as, “a pleased feeling; enjoyment; delight; satisfaction. SYN.--Pleasure is the general term for an agreeable feeling of satisfaction, ranging from a quiet sense of gratification to a positive sense of happiness.”
Apparently the dictionary makers did not consult with Miles before completing their work. Pity. I’m sure they are embarrassed by their mistake. (My own attempt at sarcasm.)
It is not I who fail to understand the concepts of happiness and pleasure. I repeat, whatever produces pleasure gives me happiness and whatever makes me happy produces pleasure. Miles’ distinction may be more than semantic. It may be that he is just wrong. Actually, he is just wrong.
Miles quotes me as saying, “A hedonist lives life by trying to maximize net pleasure, i.e., pleasure minus pain.” (Please note I supplied the missing comma this time. Miles got me on that one.) Miles says he doesn’t necessarily agree with that statement. That is because he doesn’t understand hedonism. If you Google “hedonism” and look at the Wikipedia discussion (rather than the Hedonism clubs in the Caribbean) you will find almost the exact same words that I used--net pleasure equals pleasure minus pain. That’s pretty much a definition of hedonism. So if Miles doesn’t agree with that statement, all that means is that he doesn’t agree with hedonism--but we all ready knew that. It is also apparent that he doesn’t understand the nature of pleasure and pain as it relates to hedonism. To correct his masochistic example--physical pain is the ultimate pleasure for the masochist. The true pain for the masochist is the lack of physical pain. I personally don’t find this hard to understand.
As Miles approaches his conclusion, he gets all mired down talking about what is “subjectifiable and objectifiable.” I have 3 English language dictionaries and 22 foreign language dictionaries at our house--my wife is a linguist. The words objectifiable and subjectifiable do not appear in any of them. I write using Microsoft Works Word Processor. If you type those two words into a Microsoft text, the spell-check really gets annoyed. Try it. Ain’t no such words. Miles just made them up. So accuracy is not an appropriate concept to apply to words that don’t really exist anyway.
Miles assures us that the pleasure produced by eating a thick, juicy seitan burger trumps the pleasure of eating a thick juicy porterhouse steak 10 fold. Today I put it to the test. Let me first admit that I had never heard of a seitan burger--I had to Google it. However, I went out and bought some wheat gluten--the basic ingredient -- brought it home, mixed it with some water, salt, pepper, red pepper, oregano, cumin, and a clove of garlic, formed it into a patty, coated it in bread crumbs, fried it up in some bacon grease--just kidding about the bacon grease, I used olive oil--and ate it. It was really pretty good. I had thought it might taste like a dog turd. My wife likens its taste to falafel.
While I don’t think seitan will replace steak in my life, I might try it again. I still have more wheat gluten. Since I was willing to try the delicacy recommended by Miles, I assume he will try the porterhouse steak that I heartily recommend. Fair is fair. If he doesn’t try it he will never really know that the seitan burger is any better, let alone 10 fold better. If he is unwilling to try the steak, he’s just blowing smoke about the difference and unwilling to broaden his horizons.
Finally, if Miles doesn’t believe I work out 5 days a week, he really won’t believe when I work out. This morning it was between 2 AM and 4 AM. It is usually somewhere between 2 AM and 6 AM. When I wake up, I get up and go to Gold’s Gym. It’s the only time of day I have any interest in working out.
Well, you got me, Don, if the supreme authority of the New World Dictionary says I’m wrong, it must be true. Who does this sound like? Oh, wait, Christian apologists. Apparently the dictionary makers didn’t consult with any clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, neurobiological scientists or any of the estimated 350 million Buddhists in the world, either, who would also not equivocate happiness with pleasure. At the rudimentary level of a dictionary, the distinction I make between happiness and pleasure is semantic (according to the NWD et al.), however, objectifiably, the distinction can be measured by variances in brain chemistry and a person’s genetic constitution – which is why a clinically depressed individual can experience profound pleasure and have no feelings of contentment or happiness. Don, I am not going to contend your statement, “…whatever produces pleasure gives me happiness and whatever makes me happy produces pleasure.” Whatever label you choose to place of your own personal experiences is your business (similar to a theist’s personal experience with a god or God), but academically you are incorrect, and the fact that you make note that my definitions are not entirely compatible with the dictionary definitions is irrelevant. Unfortunately the current transcription system we have for our reference material and text books is at best imperfect. A testament to this is the fact that the U.K. peppered moths of the industrial revolution are still being provided as an example of natural selection in text books of high school and college level biology programs.
ReplyDeleteDon, did you REALLY reference Wikipedia (snicker)? I’m going to pretend that you didn’t. I do understand the premise of hedonism and net pleasure, and it’s not that I disagree with the philosophy; I just feel that hedonism is an unnecessary label. Is a cancer victim by definition a hedonist? What about sweatshop workers? I’m certain these individuals would like to minimize their pain and discomfort and replace it with pleasure. If my masochist example falls flat (which I don’t believe it does), then is there really anyone who wouldn’t be considered a hedonist? Is there anyone who wants to maximize pain and reduce pleasure for themselves, or who is content being neutral – and how do you label such a person?
As far as the words “objectifiable” and “subjectifiable” are concerned, if you are REALLY, SERIOUSLY convinced that I “made up” these words, then perhaps you should spend less time in a laypersons dictionary, Don, and invest your efforts reading through evidence-based peer-reviewed scientific literature and medical journals. The National Science Foundation, NIH and PubMed have no issue with the terms. Is any of the work being conducted on stem-cell research, plasma physics, or microprocessors any less accurate because of this?
Quoting Don: “Miles assures us that the pleasure produced by eating a thick, juicy seitan burger trumps the pleasure of eating a thick juicy porterhouse steak 10 fold.” No I did not. I made a point that I could make this claim. I never made any assurance. And, you still haven’t shown how the sense of taste, or, the pleasure obtained from taste is objective. You just threw up a smoke screen and gave a personal anecdote about your lunch. And for the record, I NEVER recommended that Don try seitan, as he claims in the following statement:
“Since I was willing to try the delicacy recommended by Miles, I assume he will try the porterhouse steak that I heartily recommend. Fair is fair. If he doesn’t try it he will never really know that the seitan burger is any better, let alone 10 fold better. If he is unwilling to try the steak, he’s just blowing smoke about the difference and unwilling to broaden his horizons.”
Allow me to preface the following by noting that I am not an ass. Don, haven’t you ever heard the hackneyed saying “you should assume because it makes an ass of u and me”? Don’t assume, especially with someone who is a self-proclaimed non-ass. This attempted quip of yours is completed invalid, and here’s why – I haven’t been vegan my whole life. With that fact in mind, it is quite possible that seitan was the key to converting me to veganism (it’s not, however). I do love seitan, and I did enjoy porterhouse steaks in the throws of my youth, and I can honestly tell you that I enjoy the seitan more. Whether seitan is 10x better than a porterhouse…who knows? I never made that claim either, all I said was that I COULD make that claim. I could just as easily claim that seitan is 20x better. You need to actually read what I write Don and stop misrepresenting what I say.
Thank you again for the reply.
Cheers
-M
P.S. If there are any other human beings on this blog please e-mail either Angie or me to have your thoughts and ideas for discussions posted here. Also, any replies to any of the on-going threads are appreciated too!
I do not consider the New World Dictionary to be the supreme authority for anything. I just consider it to be a higher ranking authority than Miles Cone. You will note that Miles didn’t cite any specific authority for his pleasure/happiness contention other than Miles Cone. Since he didn’t establish his credentials as a lexicographer, I will still defer to the dictionary. I would also strongly recommend that Miles get a good dictionary and occasionally refer to it. Doing so might prevent him from using such words as “equivocate” (which is a synonym for “lie”) so inappropriately.
ReplyDeleteSince I believe in source citation, here is another-- The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy under the heading of “Hedonism”
“Pleasure will here be understood broadly, to include all pleasant feeling or experience, such as elation, ecstasy, delight, joy, and enjoyment. Pain will be taken to include all unpleasant feeling or experience: aches, throbs, irritations, anxiety, anguish, chagrin, discomfort, despair, grief, depression, guilt and remorse.”
I reiterate what I said in my last post--Miles is simply wrong in his understanding of pleasure/happiness.
I certainly agree with Miles’ implication that Wikipedia is by no means an authoritative source. After all, anyone, including Miles Cone, can contribute to it, so how could it possibly be considered authoritative? It is, however, a place to go to see what other people think about stuff, authoritative or not.
Miles says, “I do understand the premise of hedonism and net pleasure, and it’s not that I disagree with the philosophy; I just feel that hedonism is an unnecessary label.”
The concept of hedonism has been around for more than 2000 years, and the label itself derives from the ancient Greek language. It’s the label that philosophers have used to describe the philosophy for a long time. Miles does not propose another (better?) label. Since Miles claims to understand the premise of hedonism and doesn’t disagree with it, then his main objection to hedonism seems to be that it is “an unnecessary label.” If the argument simply boils down to whether the label is necessary or not, which is really non-substantive, then I have no further interest in the argument and will sign off.
No one else seems to have any interest in this argument either.
Cheers
Don