RE: Experiences with Atkins diet

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 13:12:10 MDT

  • Next message: gts: "RE: A simple betting problem was RE: my objection to the Doomsday argument"

    Mike Lorrey wrote:
    > --- Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal@smigrodzki.org> wrote:
    >> Mike Lorrey wrote:
    >>>
    >>> What I find interesting is that those who espouse 1) are also
    >>> generally atheistic, though there are buddhists as well. The atheist
    >>> vegetarian who argues a moral argument can't give a rationale for
    >>> their moral argument that is not grounded in theology. Furthermore,
    >>> if completely ignores the fact that there is far more suffering of
    >>> animals when they overpopulate due to overgrazing and lack of
    >>> sustainable predation than when animals are regularly slaughtered
    >>> quickly. Starvation is a very painful way to die.
    >>>
    >>
    >> The long-term rational observer could argue that a person'scommitment
    >> to the minimization of suffering in general is a predictor for future
    >> unwillingness to inflict suffering on the observer, and moralistic
    >> vegetarianism could be a marker for the strength of this commitment,
    >> albeit a very imperfect one. Therefore, the observer, in the
    >> interest of limiting the risk of others inflicting suffering on him
    >> in the future, might advance the idea of vegetarianism, and
    >> cooperate preferentially with vegetarians.
    >> Since cooperation from rational vegetarians could only be expected if
    >> the observer himself shows the same commitment to minimization of
    >> suffering, the observer might have to adapt the vegetarian behavior
    >> as a sign of commitment.
    >>
    >> This is directly analogous to antlers displayed by deer, and public
    >> charity shown by the rich - costly signs of prowess or moral
    >> rectitude.
    >
    > Only if one is a dunce. A rational observer would not make the
    > irrational conflation of non-sentient animals with sentient beings and
    > thus irrationally equate animal and sentient rights.

    ### I was talking about prevention of suffering in general, not about
    rights. I also did not mention sentience, conflation of anything with
    anything else, and I didn't talk about dunces, either.

    If a deeply held dislike for inflicting suffering is a predictor for future
    unwillingness to inflict pain on me, then it is very rational of me to trust
    persons exhibiting this dislike.

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 10:19:58 MDT