[lbo-talk] Become a vegetarian or rot in hell!!! (Mea maxima culpa from Miles)

John Thornton jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Tue Nov 7 13:00:18 PST 2006


This is a start but it fails to recognize that the experiments I pointed out with cortical blindness are not a matter of any social consensus but are more analogous to your biochemist studying transubstantiation.

Last time I checked suffering (the topic under discussion) was a state of mind, not a moral belief. Searching for evidence of states of mind (suffering, joy, etc.) is hardly a "pointless pedantic exercise". I'm very sorry to hear you feel this way about work in the cognitive sciences.

Why one would look at direct evidence that the minds, not the brains, of another higher mammal have been demonstrated to possess an equivalence with humans and then suggest that such evidence is equal to social consensus and thus not based on scientific evidence or logical reasoning is unexplainable. I don't expect that you would look at new evidence and then admit you might be wrong. That seldom happens here.

If you wish to disagree with the importance of such findings please let others know what your concerns with the experiments and their conclusions are rather than writing condescending posts suggesting that you alone in this argument are holding to some scientific standard that the rest of us are just ignoring. That is a rather rude gesture towards those on this list who disagree with you for other than "social consensus" reasons. Sometimes I'm a bit thin skinned but I have a difficult time imagining you are unaware of how arrogantly offensive you come across in this last post.

John Thornton

Miles Jackson wrote:


> On reflection about this thread, I have to apologize to Chris, ravi,
> John, et al. Asking for logical and evidentiary justification for moral
> beliefs, as I did near the beginning of this thread, is a pointless
> pedantic exercise. My points are pretty much analogous to a biochemist
> giving a Catholic a hard time because the Catholic cannot provide a
> reasonable scientific explanation for the transubstantiation of wine
> into blood. As Woj pointed out earlier, morals are a matter of social
> consensus; the question of whether or not the moral principles are based
> on scientific evidence or logical reasoning is completely irrelevant.
> Thus I want to emphasize to the discussants in the thread that I do in
> fact recognize and respect your moral position on this issue, although I
> do not share your view. Mea maxima culpa,
>
> Miles



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list