4 ms·

Christianity (at least Catholicism) has an animal ethic that is not man-made, but comes from divine revelation. Genesis says that man is given the responsibilit

by cicero 10y ago

Christianity (at least Catholicism) has an animal ethic that is not man-made, but comes from divine revelation. Genesis says that man is given the responsibility to care for creation, and while since the time of the flood we have permission to eat animals, the general (at least Catholic) interpretation is that doesn't mean we can be cruel to animals. In other words, if we have a reasonable need to kill an animal for food, it may be done in as humane a way as is practical. Otherwise, we should care for them.

virmundi 10y ago
I agree. In the comment above I played it from two world views. The one you espouse is the same (or similar enough) as the Christian view I mentioned. The agnostic view is there since I think, or at least assume, the majority of people on HN are agnostic. From such a view point, there is no tenable, logical reason that one should not eat meat or, in this specific case, a creature of intelligence. Such an argument comes from emotion. That's as equal as anything else in an agonistic, amoral universe. I just want to people to realize that it's a simple choice, not an absolute. Further, I prefer people coming from such a world view to ponder what they view properly. I find many pull from a Judeo-Christian ethic without realizing it. I'd like people to either break from it for a new model, or, at least, realize there is common ground between them and their theistic peers.
- cicero 10y ago
  I certainly agree that many people today hold to Christian ethics while rejecting the supernatural basis for it, not realizing that their worldview doesn't support their ethics.
- chc 10y ago
  This seems a bit ethnocentric. Judeo-Christianity did bring some novel moral requirements, but the ones that it shares with most agnostics and atheists are not Judeo-Christian inventions. For example, Buddhists have been practicing compassion without any need for the Hebrew god for thousands of years, and Jains are some of the most extreme animal rights wonks you'll meet.
  - virmundi 10y ago
    That is a valid critique of my context. I presumed a Post-Enlighment Western world view of a European atheist bent. Unfortunately Buddhists and Jains don't get away any better. They have an underlying belief in a Universal truth. The Universe can punish (at least for Buddhists; I have trouble pinning Jains down on from a karmic perspective since I'm not terribly familiar with them). Edit: critic -> critique
- jdmichal 10y ago
  I'd like to note that agnosticism and theism are not opposing. Agnosticism simply declares that you view the existence and / or properties of one or more deities as unknowable [0]. That is not incompatible with theism. In fact, I argue that such is the definition of faith -- to believe despite not knowing. [0] Or, for weak agnosticism, currently unknown.
  - notdonspaulding 10y ago
    I find your lack of [a good definition of] faith disturbing. -- Darth Webster Seriously though, I think the "blind faith" usage of the term faith is its weakest form. "Trust" and "confidence" are good synonyms. Because as a rule, humans have faith in a great many things, and the vast majority of those faiths are not characterized by a lack of knowledge or evidence. Consider the following statements: - The astronauts had faith in the laws of physics. - My husband was unfaithful to me. - I've lost my faith in humanity because FooBar was elected. - Have you no faith in me? - The war started when our allies broke faith with us. - You should always negotiate in good faith. - My dog has been my faithful companion for a great many years. Think about the faith being represented by those phrases. Does the person who had the faith have it without intimate knowledge of the object of the faith? No! The faith existed because of what they knew about the object, not in spite of it.
    - Graphon1 10y ago
      > The astronauts had faith in the laws of physics. You have used an analogy here, in order to aid your point, but it is not valid. Laws of physics do not intersect with faith. At all.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      I'm not sure if you think your making a point against my definition. Replace the word "believe" with "trust" and it could fit perfectly as one of your examples: > In fact, I argue that such is the definition of faith -- to trust despite not knowing. I don't think that's such a big difference. Believing in something is trusting it to exist and to have the properties that you think it does. If the astronauts were wrong about the laws of physics, it would have broken their trust and thus their faith. Hell, just for funsies, to drive the point home: > belief - Trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief
- majewsky 10y ago
  > From [an agnostic] view point, there is no tenable, logical reason that one should not eat meat Sure there is. Mass production of meat is one of the major fuels for global warming, so if our fitness function optimizes for survival of our species, we better go veggie. inb4 Prisoner's Dilemma
  - virmundi 10y ago
    Not a bad answer, presuming humanity is a thing to preserve (not proven). Though it answer the question "Should we eat meat farmed in a mass production way" much more than should we eat meat at all. There is a theory that we can use cows to reclaim deserts (https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...). Given your argument, we could eat those cows when they come to market since they should have a positive impact on the problem. Edit: grammar clarification.
WalterSear 10y ago
Except we no longer need to kill animals for food. Animal products are, on the whole, deleterious to our health. So, why is it still acceptable to most Catholics?
- virmundi 10y ago
  > Animal products are, on the whole, deleterious to our health. Because this is not proven. Soy is pretty bad for us. The best diet to date is the mediterranean diet. While not having much beef, it does include ample amounts of fish with some chicken. If we focus on science, vegetarianism is not the best course. Moderation that includes taking life is so far (and this can change) the best solution. Edit: formatting to break response from quote.
  - WalterSear 10y ago
    > Because this is not proven. There's enough evidence to suggest that it is, and conclusively. When I went vegan, I also thought I was choosing a sub-optimum diet, but it was a compromise I was willing to make. As I got more educated on nutrition, I came to realize that the benefits outweighed the drawbacks substantially. People have been vegan for thousands of years. There's a plethora of information on the problems that animal products cause. Do a search for endotoxemia, if you want one (of the many) general issues cause by animal products. > Soy is pretty bad for us. No it's not, Vincent Price foundation-sponsored research notwithstanding. There's more actual estrogen in cow's milk. To suffer deleterious effects from soy, you need to eat nothing but soy. Not no other protein - nothing but soy. And that just soy, that's not 'no animal products'. I know people who avoid both due to allergies, and are healthy. I eat plenty of soy, and my doctor tells me I'm doing great. My bloodwork never comes back 'ok' - it's comes back 'optimum'. > If we focus on science, vegetarianism is not the best course. It is. Please don't trust me: go look it up. And regardless: what is 'best' for our health, isn't 'what is necessary', which was my original question, and is the edict I am questioning. Thousands of people live and thrive without animal products, include centenarians and high performance athletes, so clearly, it is not so deleterious as to prevent one from thriving. Is it not important to strive to be a good person, if you can? Is this not a part of catholicism too?

by cicero 10y ago

virmundi 10y ago

I agree. In the comment above I played it from two world views. The one you espouse is the same (or similar enough) as the Christian view I mentioned. The agnostic view is there since I think, or at least assume, the majority of people on HN are agnostic. From such a view point, there is no tenable, logical reason that one should not eat meat or, in this specific case, a creature of intelligence. Such an argument comes from emotion. That's as equal as anything else in an agonistic, amoral universe. I just want to people to realize that it's a simple choice, not an absolute. Further, I prefer people coming from such a world view to ponder what they view properly. I find many pull from a Judeo-Christian ethic without realizing it. I'd like people to either break from it for a new model, or, at least, realize there is common ground between them and their theistic peers.

cicero 10y ago
I certainly agree that many people today hold to Christian ethics while rejecting the supernatural basis for it, not realizing that their worldview doesn't support their ethics.
chc 10y ago
This seems a bit ethnocentric. Judeo-Christianity did bring some novel moral requirements, but the ones that it shares with most agnostics and atheists are not Judeo-Christian inventions. For example, Buddhists have been practicing compassion without any need for the Hebrew god for thousands of years, and Jains are some of the most extreme animal rights wonks you'll meet.
- virmundi 10y ago
  That is a valid critique of my context. I presumed a Post-Enlighment Western world view of a European atheist bent. Unfortunately Buddhists and Jains don't get away any better. They have an underlying belief in a Universal truth. The Universe can punish (at least for Buddhists; I have trouble pinning Jains down on from a karmic perspective since I'm not terribly familiar with them). Edit: critic -> critique
jdmichal 10y ago
I'd like to note that agnosticism and theism are not opposing. Agnosticism simply declares that you view the existence and / or properties of one or more deities as unknowable [0]. That is not incompatible with theism. In fact, I argue that such is the definition of faith -- to believe despite not knowing. [0] Or, for weak agnosticism, currently unknown.
- notdonspaulding 10y ago
  I find your lack of [a good definition of] faith disturbing. -- Darth Webster Seriously though, I think the "blind faith" usage of the term faith is its weakest form. "Trust" and "confidence" are good synonyms. Because as a rule, humans have faith in a great many things, and the vast majority of those faiths are not characterized by a lack of knowledge or evidence. Consider the following statements: - The astronauts had faith in the laws of physics. - My husband was unfaithful to me. - I've lost my faith in humanity because FooBar was elected. - Have you no faith in me? - The war started when our allies broke faith with us. - You should always negotiate in good faith. - My dog has been my faithful companion for a great many years. Think about the faith being represented by those phrases. Does the person who had the faith have it without intimate knowledge of the object of the faith? No! The faith existed because of what they knew about the object, not in spite of it.
  - Graphon1 10y ago
    > The astronauts had faith in the laws of physics. You have used an analogy here, in order to aid your point, but it is not valid. Laws of physics do not intersect with faith. At all.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    I'm not sure if you think your making a point against my definition. Replace the word "believe" with "trust" and it could fit perfectly as one of your examples: > In fact, I argue that such is the definition of faith -- to trust despite not knowing. I don't think that's such a big difference. Believing in something is trusting it to exist and to have the properties that you think it does. If the astronauts were wrong about the laws of physics, it would have broken their trust and thus their faith. Hell, just for funsies, to drive the point home: > belief - Trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/belief
majewsky 10y ago
> From [an agnostic] view point, there is no tenable, logical reason that one should not eat meat Sure there is. Mass production of meat is one of the major fuels for global warming, so if our fitness function optimizes for survival of our species, we better go veggie. inb4 Prisoner's Dilemma
- virmundi 10y ago
  Not a bad answer, presuming humanity is a thing to preserve (not proven). Though it answer the question "Should we eat meat farmed in a mass production way" much more than should we eat meat at all. There is a theory that we can use cows to reclaim deserts (https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_worl...). Given your argument, we could eat those cows when they come to market since they should have a positive impact on the problem. Edit: grammar clarification.

WalterSear 10y ago

Except we no longer need to kill animals for food. Animal products are, on the whole, deleterious to our health. So, why is it still acceptable to most Catholics?

virmundi 10y ago
> Animal products are, on the whole, deleterious to our health. Because this is not proven. Soy is pretty bad for us. The best diet to date is the mediterranean diet. While not having much beef, it does include ample amounts of fish with some chicken. If we focus on science, vegetarianism is not the best course. Moderation that includes taking life is so far (and this can change) the best solution. Edit: formatting to break response from quote.
- WalterSear 10y ago
  > Because this is not proven. There's enough evidence to suggest that it is, and conclusively. When I went vegan, I also thought I was choosing a sub-optimum diet, but it was a compromise I was willing to make. As I got more educated on nutrition, I came to realize that the benefits outweighed the drawbacks substantially. People have been vegan for thousands of years. There's a plethora of information on the problems that animal products cause. Do a search for endotoxemia, if you want one (of the many) general issues cause by animal products. > Soy is pretty bad for us. No it's not, Vincent Price foundation-sponsored research notwithstanding. There's more actual estrogen in cow's milk. To suffer deleterious effects from soy, you need to eat nothing but soy. Not no other protein - nothing but soy. And that just soy, that's not 'no animal products'. I know people who avoid both due to allergies, and are healthy. I eat plenty of soy, and my doctor tells me I'm doing great. My bloodwork never comes back 'ok' - it's comes back 'optimum'. > If we focus on science, vegetarianism is not the best course. It is. Please don't trust me: go look it up. And regardless: what is 'best' for our health, isn't 'what is necessary', which was my original question, and is the edict I am questioning. Thousands of people live and thrive without animal products, include centenarians and high performance athletes, so clearly, it is not so deleterious as to prevent one from thriving. Is it not important to strive to be a good person, if you can? Is this not a part of catholicism too?