Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyCity
I have a great dog. I think he is really smart. But:
1. He has yet to figure out how to feed himself. His food storage container is right next to his food bowl. He sees me scoop food from the container into the bowl twice each day.
2. He has yet to figure out how to let himself out. He sees me open the door for him several times a day. I think he tries to blame it on a lack of opposable thumbs.
3. The words "filet mignon" mean nothing to him. "Milk bone" sends him into an absolute tizzy.
|
These reasons are all results of Classical and Operant Conditioning of animals. An animal in the wild would act differently than normal housepets. Humans can undergo the same conditioning and be made to be pets. As unethical as the practice is, if started at an early age, key cognitive processes can be inhibited that would make a human act much like a dog, that is, completely dependent on it's master for survival.
Thus you've only illustrated the effects of conditioning on animals, not anything close to determining the level of rationality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WC
4. I accidentally knock my dinner plate to the floor. The meat and bread disappear down his throat. The veggies I have to clean up. (I said he was smart!!)
|
Your dog has a taste for meat just as other animals have, including humans. I have stated earlier, there is nothing wrong for desiring to eat meat. The contradiction comes when you label it "wrong" to eat human meat. The dog you have that eats the meat and bread has never told you that it is "wrong" to eat dog meat. If you fed it to him or her, he or she may very well eat it. Therefore the dog is not guilty of contradiction.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WC
The basic communal nature of man precludes us from turning on each other as a source of food. If a society had to compete within itself to avoid being eaten by its own members, a civil existence would have been impossible.
|
Contrary to your warrentless claim that man's "basic communal nature" precludes him from eating another man, societies practicing cannibalism have functioned throughout ancient times and in order to survive, men have often been compelled to eat human flesh in modern times.
The flaw here is that you presuppose that a cannibalistic society would be a sort of Dawn of the Dead feeding frenzy where everyone nibbled at everyone else every day at every meal. Certainly you do not eat hamburger everyday of every meal do you? As far as the term civil goes, that is debatable but existence has proven true in many different societies.
Moreover, your argument that man's basic nature is a reason to exclude vegitarianism ignores the idea of a developed conscience. Certainly our basic nature compells us to survive, however we cannot simply shotgun anyone who poses the slightest threat to us, can we? If man has the cognitive ability to higher function, then we should recognize the contradiction in cosuming meat but calling it "wrong" to eat other humans.
Or the alternative, I believe it is wrong to eat humans, because humans are animals too, I believe that it is concurrently wrong to consume other animals. No contradiction.