Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

SpaceChimp007

Regulars
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SpaceChimp007

  1. Let's assume that a brief interlude of time arrises, however long, where a government exists that cannot defend your rights due to insufficient funds. It seems reasonable that this situation is well within the realm of possibility for a number of reasons. Doesn't this open up the Objectivist position to very dire attacks from others?
  2. It sounds as if to have a government that limits itself to the principles prescribed under Objectivism, the country will have to be predominantly populated by Objectivists. Is that correct? Assuming it is, there would in turn be no shortage as it is rational to donate to the government that protects you. Is that correct? Would it be correct to say that not contributing your fair share- essentially making you a moocher- would disqualify you from being an Objectivist? Granting a population increase both naturally and through a positive flow of immigrants, taking it as a given that some will not be Objectivists, is it the responsibility of an Objectivist to pick up the difference that must be accounted for? In other words, is it rational to pay more than your fair share to ensure that sufficient funds reach the government? Thanks for your thoughts everyone.
  3. *** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier topic - sN *** How does a government that limits itself to the duties Rand described fund itself? If funding ever fell short for the necessary upkeep of civil and foreign defense, would the Objectivist position advocate operating on a smaller budget (to the point of insufficiency?) or would the Objectivist position be to tax the citizenry to make up for the shortfall? Also, do you have a rough idea of the amount of money necessary to run an effective police defense, court system and military? **I couldn't find a thread on this as my search yield too many to browse through. If anyone remembers where to find one and help me out with a link, I'd appreciate it. Thanks**
  4. The rationality goes like this: I value a meat diet over a vegan diet by a very small amount. It is a cause of discomfort knowing that I eat meat that was the product of a tortured animal. Meat diet minus discomfort is of less value to me than a vegan diet according to my values. My values may be wrong as I've changed my mind on things before but as it stands now, according to my values, I am acting rationally. Thats the best demonstration I can give. Values are objective facts but they differ from man to man. I'm a climber. My wife plays the piano. I try and tell her that rock climbing and alpinism is better while she tries to explain to me that playing the piano is better. The reality of the situation is that each of is correct because our values are different from one another. I would say this is okay because each of us holds different values that are consistent with objective reality. Unless you have the ultimate hierarchy of values regarding every possible action for every different individual and could in theory dicate to them how to be rational in everything they do, I don't see how you can argue any differently. I'd be interested to hear how it could be different. It might be. . . . The objective fact is that I feel sad to see an animal suffer, all else being equal. Now I grant that my taste buds differ depending on my diet but it's such a small amount that the animal suffering more than compensates for the dissatisfaction of my taste buds. What objective fact leads a man to prefer rock climbing over playing a piano?
  5. I want to clear up a few assumptions or accusations: 1. When you use acronyms, it is possible that you have nothing to hide 2. All NPOs are not necessarily anticapitalists. To engage in such an activity does not make you an anticapitalist. 3. These NPOs are held accountable by independent third parties. The employees of the organization themselves will testify to their credibility and a branch of the USDA called the ARC ensure that they are consistent and reliable. Whether or not abstaining from eating meat is rational or moral, the above are the objective facts of reality. I hope that can add some sufficient proof to my earlier claims. And I don't agree that the demand to select certified meat is unreasonable. It is probably the case it is unreasonable if you confine yourself to your local grocery stores like I do but again, I'd be happy to tell you how it can be done. Whether or not the cost is justified is another manner. What makes it a safe bet is that any agribusiness whose motive is profit, would never decline a valuable certification if it didn't cost them something. It'd be like Ford or Toyota turning down a safety certification. The agribusiness is either foolish to deny it or they are not willing to pay the high cost of raising humane animals. Your other claim that NPOs are not regulated by the food industry is a falsehood so I don't think I need to give it any attention. I agree entirely that PETA and ELF, especially ALF (Animal Liberation Front) are anti-capitalist and anti-human. To say you have no conclusive knowledge one way or the other is a little weak. You and I have clues and when the evidence is overwhelming as it is here (see the earlier points of this post), you should take a stand. What's more likely: The NPO is deceiving all of the employees and volunteers and are fooling the USDA or the agribusiness does not treat animal humane to the standards of the NPO because the cost is (rightly) too high While it's not conclusive, a reasonable man can make a very, very safe assumption. I am saying you should assume pork chops are the result of brutality unless otherwise said. I did NOT say that cost should not enter into your calculations. I'm a little offended by that, too. I'll clarify in case you misunderstood or I misrepresented my view. One should ALWAYS measure the cost of EVERYTHING when making ANY decision. Consequently, the happiness of a pig should NEVER be more important to you than your own life. KILL ANIMALS WHEN FACED WITH THE CHOICE OF YOU OR THEM. KILL ANIMALS IF THE HAPPINESS YOU DERIVE FROM KILLING ANIMALS OUTWEIGHTS THE COST, IF ANY, OF KILLING AN ANIMAL. I DO ALL THE TIME! I AM NOT ADVOCATING A POSITION OUTLAWING THE EATING OF POORLY TREATED ANIMALS. I advocate picking the love pork chops over the brutal pork chops when they are comparable costs. I do not advocate picking the love pork chops over the brutal pork chops when they are NOT comparable costs. I gotta run
  6. I don't think being a vegan is superior or inferior either. I completely agree. I'm glad you're able to articulate those ideas so well.
  7. Then I would eat them if I were you as well. I think that humane treatment towards animals, much like manners and generosity towards humans, is entirely subjective. I feel guilt because it makes me unhappy to know that an animal was mistreated and tortured so I could enjoy the slightly better tasting hamburger as opposed to a tofu burger. Just like I'd hate to see someone else torture the dog my neighbor has for pleasure (be it taste or humor), I'd hate to participate in that behavior myself. I wouldn't call my feelings empathy. I would say that I know there is a small cost (pleasurable taste of meat) I am going to endure but this loss of utility is more than compensated for by the utility that I derive from knowing I'm not responsible for this practice. When the cost of is too much, for example the benefits of medice testing, I'm behind that 100%. Well, I don't avoid wheat. I'm well aware that some animals die as a result of the harvesting but this does not bother me as much. The reason is that the intent to kill is not there and the alternative to not consuming wheat, vegetables, fruit is poor health and being in good health very high up on my ladder of utility. If someone wants to avoid wheat though, more power to them and as long as they don't outlaw the consumption of wheat (or meat or vegetables), I have no problem with that. However, I would argue to them that their avoidance of wheat is irrational.
  8. Athletes (should) concern themselves with their diet and it seemed like you did. That coupled with the fact the diet you promoted is exactly what an athlete should be putting into his or her body, I thought I'd ask because I'd be interested in speaking with a serious athlete who is also an Objectivist. As far as cooking goes, hope your fiancee is on top of his or her game in that department for your sake Also, I don't think you should worry about having to rely on buying produce that much. I doubt it's going anywhere and if you find the right market, you can pick it up cheaper and much more consistent than you'll be able to produce it- at least in the beginning. That said, grow a tomato plant. Once you a homemade tomato, you'll never (want to) buy a grocery tomato again!
  9. I agree and the science that supports this diet as beneficial to man is overwhelming. Anyone who holds rational thinking to be a virtue who is not following the diet described above has just found a little more room for improvement! Are you an athlete madkat?
  10. I agree it is much more likely to occur in nature although I'm not sure that can be used as a blanket pardon for man to treat them in the way he does. I also think a strong case could be made that a chicken would much rather be out in the wild then in an industrialized barn. That's an interesting point you make but I don't know if it's an argument. Does anyone have any comments on the pet idea? The idea of a pet being a contributing factor to my happiness is so commonplace I don't think it needs explanation. I would imagine few, if any, would be okay carving up their own pet to eat given that the alternative is sauteed vegetables with tofu and a side of kidney beans. I don't think the property argument would hold up and to account for the attachment entirely on emotional grounds seems to put one on a slippery slope. I'm probably missing something here so I look forward to feedback on this point Is it so irrational of someone to hold the view that participating in the mistreatment and torture of other animals is more costly to them than passing up on the slightly better tasting diet? Just like "sacrificing" for my wife is not a real sacrifice to me, so too is "sacrificing" for the proper treatment of animals is not a real sacrifice to me.
  11. David, I'm not sure we're on the same page. I cannot give you the ratings for a random selection of birds and mammals from their meat departments. Nobody ever made that claim though- myself included. What I did say is that they could check to see if that meat has been certified as being the product of a humanely raised animal. If the product is not certified by any NPO though, it's a safe bet that those animals probably did not have it very good. Either that or the producer doesn't want to exposed as humane which is probably not the case. However, your expert analysis aside, the enterprise of certifying meat products as humane is not useless. It is to you since you don't don't regard it as valuable service. It isn't to my friend Jason or his sister Sharon who live next to a farmer's market who carries certified meat products. The decision to only buy certified meat is not too costly for them as they live just minutes away from that store. I would have to drive some 15-20 miles to buy certified meat and I view that as too expensive so I just adopt a vegan diet to ensure that I'm not a contributor to a practice I do not want to be a part of. I don't have any of those stores you mentioned above where I live (CA) but if you give me your zip code I would be happy to tell you or a friend of yours who shares my sentiments where they can go to buy meat products from animals raised in a humane manner. If they decide that the extra cost imposed on them by the extra time and money spent traveling to that particular store to buy certified meat is worth it, I'd be glad to help. If they decide otherwise like I did, that's fine, too.
  12. That link was helpful! The idea of my emotions reflecting my values seems to make sense. I agree that I ought to know what should and should not make me feel good. I'm not sure how following a vegan diet would apply though. I know that animals suffer as a result of my eating of certain meats. I know that the suffering of animals, all else being equal, is something I would rather rid the world of. I know not enjoying the taste of meat brings about less happiness to me but when I consider the happiness I get from knowing I'm fighting against inhumane animal treatment, I'm happier not eating meat. Since b is more valuable to me than a , I will seek to bring about b so long as its cost is not too high relative to the cost of obtaining a . Inspector, are you saying I should try and kick my emotional attachment towards the inhumane treatment of animals? I acknowledge that by doing so I would be back to eating meat. Other than by lying to myself which logic would not permit, I'm not sure how to rewire my mind. Perhaps I just need to think this through and go over this concept in my head for a bit. Thanks for the feedback Inspector
  13. I act in a way that reflects my values. My integrity would be compromised if I bought meat from those people who did not raise it in a way I deemed humane. By upholding my integrity, have I accomplished something? Is it your position that a rational man should not let the necessary suffering of animals cause him unhappiness in order to produce a better tasting diet? I know nobody can know what makes me feel good, but, can you, in theory, be in a position to tell me what should and should not make me feel good? Would a rational person let his pet dog's happiness influence his own happiness? I value my dog Lucy and god help whoever tries to stick a fork in her! I understand that she is my property but is that the only reason she influences my happiness (nope!)? Can I not feel for an animal who is not my property? And briefly, I agree about the caving in to mob mentality. I would note however that mob mentality is not on my side. Yes, from a practical POV, there are distinctions that a rational person can make that pertained to the life of the animal regardless of whether they bought the carcass from their cousin. They can check to see if it has been certified by any number of NPOs that can attest to that animal's quality of life. This is very obvious to me. I'm probably misunderstanding you. I agree.
  14. That's why I try and limit my consumption of animals. I've never thought too much about this but you are probably right regarding this. However, I don't feel that all amounts of animal suffering are created equal to my happiness. I therefore try to limit my meat consumptions while happily admitting to the fact that I engage in behavior that causes animals suffering in order to make me happy. It is just that driving to work and watching gnats explode on my truck's windshield is not that much of a concern when measured against the great deal of utility I get from driving to work as opposed to walking. My happiness always takes precedence over animals. It just so happens that sometimes an animal's happiness contributes to my happiness and sways my decision and I act accordingly. I don't see the harm whether or not it's always "you or them".
  15. The practical consequences of this decision is, primarily, FeatherFall will feel happier knowing his or her dollar does not contribute to the suffering of animals. In addition to that, the farmer who raises animals in a humane way will be rewarded with $ by providing a good that is desired by the consumer while the farmer who engages in the unacceptable treatment of their livestock, gets punished by losing $. I know a considerable amount There are a number of NPOs that do this for us. Each agency has a unique list of criteria that the farm must abide by in order to be recognized by that particular agency as being certified humane. As far as knowing from the POV of animal suffering, this is fairly easy to determine. Animals dislike starving to death, dehydrating to death and being tortured to death. Farms that choose to treat animals this way, will lose an otherwise valuable certification (not to say that this will cost them more $ by losing it as clearly more profitable for the likes of Foster Farms and Tyson to continue in their ways). Because of these NPOs, FeatherFall and those like him or her now know which burger producer to buy from in order to know that they did not buy from a farmer who treats his or her burger producing cattle in an inhumane way. The actual fact of the matter is that the consumer needs to undergo very little research. The consumer simply needs to decide which agency meets their requirements, find out what store sells that certified product (which is available from the NPO's site) and then drive on over and eat- guilt free!
  16. I agree that meat tastes good and understand why animals have no rights. I do choose to be a vegan in regards to my food choice though. The comfort I get from eating a vegan diet which I do enjoy is close to the comfort I would get from eating a little bit better tasting diet consisting of both vegan products and meat products. Knowing that the animals I ate were mistreated and to some extent tortured, this is what tipped the scales in favor of becoming a vegan. I would have no problem eating meat if I thought I'd be happier doing so but since I decided to adhere to a vegan diet, that situation has yet to arrise. I'm not a member of man-hating PETA or ALF and if someones enjoys wearing a mink coat or hunting big game, I have no problem with that either. I also support the testing of animals to make man's life better. I know Rand was not much of an advocate of charity and this seems to me to be along the same lines. Something that is not the duty of any man but well within the accepted behavior of an Objectivist if it helps him or her live a happier life. I'm not sold on it being considered irrational to abstain from meat from a strictly "animal cruelty" perspective. My food budget has gone down since I've become a vegan and my health has not changed for better or worse. There are no detremental effects of becoming a vegan if you take the time to educate yourself about the dietary substitutes necessary. It could very well be something I'm missing and if so, I look forward to finding out what!
  17. I think this is a very interesting topic. I would definitely fall in line with Y. Brook on this, too. However, I would like to remind people that the Iraqi people ought to be voting with their feet. If you value your life, isn't the rational move to get on the first train outta Baghdad? I'm not sure how emigration works in the Middle East, especially Iraq in particular, but I'd risk a great deal to get outta dodge once I was in earshot of bombs and bullets! An Iraqi civilian may be innocent of aggression but that does not free him from the responsibility of improving his lot. Withdrawing your support of a tyrannical, backward country like Iraq should be the action of just about every civilian in my book. I have a question to those who support the troops but not the war/govt./Bush foreign policy etc (I'll leave aside those who enlisted prior to the Afghan/Iraq conflict for the sake of argument alone). If a Aleph_o signs up in 2008 to join the Marines, does it not follow that he or she signs up in support of the war (govt./Bush foreign policy)? Why support Aleph_o and not the war when Aleph_o is responsible for the war? If you join the military in the wake of an unjust war, you are the willing means to the ends of an unjust state. By signing up to be tool of destruction in the hands of this government during a war like this, you should not only lose our support but you should be scorned.
×
×
  • Create New...