Arnon

Did you consider recommending the debaters to read Coetzee's "The lives of animals"?

Since the moral status of men equals the moral status of animals , our status now also equals the status of plants.
Now I'm sure, I always knew, I always felt like a vegetable. Broccoli I am.

Can you remember what the equation was? Maybe the equation said the moral status of plants is always lower than the moral status of animals. In that case, would it still be surprising?

I'm always surprised to see nonbeta-researchers (or debaters in this case) use mathical means (like an overrated equation of moral statusses) in an area that has nothing to do with mathematics or physics. How would you define moral status and how could you compare it or even measure it?

Z

equate |ikwāt|verb [ trans. ]consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another : customers equate their name with quality.• [ intrans. ] ( equate to/with) (of one thing) be the same as or equivalent to (another) : that sum equates to half a million pounds today.• cause (two or more things) to be the same in quantity or value : the level of prices will move to equate supply and demand.

Oscar

OscarNo, but I started the debate with a Coetzee quote (a definition of the novel ) and “The lives of animals” is part of my class in Leiden. I should have asked questions about the moral status of plants, interesting enough the audience didn’t object either. This leaves us with the question: if we want to act morally, what can we eat?

animals and plants

Animals eat each other and plants. Some plants eat animals (insects). Some animals eat people. Some plants are so poisonous – they kill people. Why would it be wrong for people to eat animals and plants?

Z! I don’t think there is an area that has nothing to do with physics ;)

Thanks for clearing that up. I should read and write more carefully.

We can still eat fungus. It's not a plant or animal.

Interesting point. There are people who consider the moral status of people from another country/another race/another tribe comparative to that of an animal. Probably they would have no problems with consuming such people if they got a chance. I for my part support Mieke from above.

Sasja

In other words, you are asking yourself: if it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat?

Arnon

What a person eats, or what they are willing to eat, appears to reveal something about their moral values. If you ask a person about their moral values, they will often regress to motivated reasoning.

If you are hungry you couldn't care less about morals.

Strasse's partner

"'Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral!" hat Bertold Brecht einst effektvoll einer Bourgeoisie entgegengeschleudert, die vom hohen Ross materieller Wohlsituiertheit den niederen Schichten Moral predigen wollte"

Ihr Herrn, die ihr uns lehrt, wie man brav leben
Und Sünd und Missetat vermeiden kann
Zuerst müßt ihr uns schon zu fressen geben
Dann könnt ihr reden: damit fängt es an.
Ihr, die ihr euren Wanst und unsere Bravheit liebt
Das Eine wisset ein für allemal:
Wie ihr es immer dreht und immer schiebt
Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral.
Erst muß es möglich sein, auch armen Leuten
Vom großen Brotlaib sich ihr Teil zu schneiden

Does moral matter if one isn't poor enough to hide behind Brecht's line but has a choice in what food to take?

oscar

Is this what you mean with "motivated reasoning"?

"It is proposed that motivation may affect reasoning through reliance on a biased set of cognitive processes--that is, strategies for accessing, constructing, and evaluating beliefs. The motivation to be accurate enhances use of those beliefs and strategies that are considered most appropriate, whereas the motivation to arrive at particular conclusions enhances use of those that are considered most likely to yield the desired conclusion. There is considerable evidence that people are more likely to arrive at conclusions that they want to arrive at, but their ability to do so is constrained by their ability to construct seemingly reasonable justifications for these conclusions. These ideas can account for a wide variety of research concerned with motivated reasoning."

Arnon

Yes. An interesting example of motivated reasoning was dicsussed in a recent article in the NYT called "A Clash of Polar Frauds and Those Who Believe":

http://tinyurl.com/nqtwoh

A quote from this article: "When the facts get in the way of our beliefs, our brains are marvelously adept at dispensing with the facts".

Jeanette

I guess it should but my selfishness gets always in the way, I try to be as moral as possible for my beloved ones, the rest of the world (plants, animals, earth...) is a little to much to big for me, in theory I wish the best for everybody, practical I just hope for the best for me.

Strasse's partner

Really like your answer here!

Vegetarian Animals

If they are equal, then it doesn't matter on a moral basis whether you eat meat or not.

In fact by that notion, you could eat your own species as well; it is equivalent to eating plants. Assuming the economist considers humans to be animals.

Still, I prefer asparagus (and some species of fungus) to most animals. I haven't eaten human yet.