Hacker News Reader

Comment by cicero | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

> 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.

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

You argue that the definition of faith is to (trust, believe, have faith) in something despite not knowing.

We agree in the main. My point is one of where we put the emphasis.

My counterargument, if it is one, is simply that when humans actually have faith in something, it's almost always "trusting what I don't know is going on, because of what I know of this object in other circumstances".

The husband "trusts" his wife to be faithful, not because he has a tracker on her and so knows where she goes at all hours, but because he knows who she is when she's with him.

A soldier "has faith in" in the general's battle plan because of the general's past victories.

I'm just arguing that all the really useful definitions of faith imply that the trust is actually rooted in knowledge and past experience, not merely blind, hopeful, stick-your-fingers-in-your-ears-and-sing-la-la-la ignorance of reality.

Ah, I see. I don't think I necessarily agree with that definition of faith. For two reasons:

1. I don't think it serves much purpose if it's directly synonymous with trust.

2. Such a definition of faith runs directly against the definition of agnosticism, which asserts that such knowledge is unattainable.

I think the word faith brings to the table much of the denotation of trust, but with the connotation of doing it despite not knowing. After all, there are many husbands who find their wife cheating. There are many soldiers that end up dead, despite the best general's most careful planning. There's a level of the unknowable in all these scenarios, and faith is the continuation of belief in the face of these unknowns.

Or, put this way: The saying is that "trust is something earned". It's earned through proof of intention via past experience. I think faith removes this "earning" step -- it's trust without necessarily being earned.

> 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

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_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.

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?

> 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.

> 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?

Call me a skeptic, but can we trust nutritionists?

A few years ago foods like eggs and coffee were poison. You should eat margarine instead of butter, now it is the other way around.

This science branch seems to attract charlatans.

>This science branch seems to attract charlatans.

It seems like it is incredibly difficult to perform conclusive research around nutrition, human growth etc without violating a bunch of ethical standards. The relative inability to perform research that comes to solid conclusions combined with the fact that food is something that people make purchasing decisions around every day (ie there are lots of $'s involved) creates huge scope for dubious ideas and ethically dubious businesses to thrive.

I understand (and share) your skepticism, particularly in the light of what science and health reporting has become. Moreover, the popular press tends to lump vegetarianism with every other orthorexic/antiscience fad to come along - from non-celiac gluten avoidance to 'juice' cleanses to wheatgrass enemas. It's not a minor frustration to be lumped in with the self-absorbed orthorexic crowd, but what are you going to do? :)

Regardless, the healthiness of vegetables isn't new science, nor is our understanding of the fundamental requirements of the human body. We know humans require iodine, vitamin d and other essential vitamins to survive. We know humans can't manufacture 9 specific amines that we colloquially refer to as 'protein', and require them from their diet. This isn't new science, and we know that it's possible to be healthy and vegan, which is why the World Health Organization, Kaiser Permanente, among other health organizations have started promoting plant-based diets.

(If I'm feeling cynical, my usual answer to the question 'where do you get your protein?' is 'which ones are you specifically concerned about?', since the questioner invariably doesn't actually know what a protein is, but vaguely knows that meat has it, and broccoli "doesn't".)

(Broccoli has almost as much protein, on a caloric basis, as steak (8 grams per 100 cals vs 11 grams). Though, that's kind of a cop-out answer, because while broccoli contains all the right proteins, it only has very little of one of them. Then again, nobody has to live just on broccoli - just like nobody in their right mind would live on nothing but steak. Add a few beans to your diet and boom, broccoli is now as complete as steak. I have more trouble >choosing< what to eat than ever having trouble 'finding enough things I can eat' :) )

There have been vegans for literally thousands of years - both buddhist and jainist religions espouse vegan or at least extremely plant based diets. What is new, however, is the plethora of new vegan food products and services, that have made being vegan vastly easier than it has ever been to be vegan - fermented cheeses, dozens of 'meat' substitutes, even brand new kinds of food, like Quorn. It's kind of crazy (and not entirely good for my waist :))

If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I also have sources that I consider science-based and would recommend to others, but particularly those with a skeptical eye :)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3854817/

https://share.kaiserpermanente.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/1...

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/05/world-health-org-and-u...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism#Practice

Habit, tradition, (Small-c) conservatism.

It's true we (most of us) don't absolutely need to kill animals for food. On the other hand there is a vast human momentum in the direction of raising, killing, and eating animals. That doesn't change overnight, or even in a generation or 5. It takes a long time to change such things.

My theory: It's for a similar reason that homosexuality has been taboo for so long. In the beginning, tribes needed to procreate in order to survive, and homosexuality didn't help with that, and it may have hurt. So it was written into old books: go forth and multiply, and don't have fun with those of the same gender. That won't produce offspring.

But now the challenges of survival do not involve "not enough offspring". So we no longer NEED to worry so much about homosexuality, not for 1000 years. And yet, the belief and habit of mind continues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com