Penny for Your Philosophical Thoughts?
Welcome to the CSUN Student Philosophy Society Blog. This the site devoted to those of us who will sink so low as to blog for philosophy. If you are one of those people , do us a favor and sign up to be a contributor. We would love to hear anything you have to say, even if it is via the internet. Oh, and if you have shame, you can feel free to just leave comments. We know you have a reputation to live up to.

Remember, we did it all for the philosophy.

Much Love,
The Student Philosophy Society.
Cal State University, Northridge.

Note: If you do not have an internet connection, submissions are also accepted through the thinking power of thought. Be aware, these submissions will only be viewable through the thinking power of thought.


Request An Invite:
Jes
Tim


Guidelines:
The SPS blogspot is a space we like to keep casual and supportive. Do us a favor, and remember what your mother told you:
If you don't have something nice to say, there is an entire internet out there waiting for you to make an ass out of yourself. Go there.
Also, make that face long enough, it'll stay that way.
-SPS

Links:
The SPS official Web Site.
They disavow any affiliation.

Cal State Northridge Philosophy Home Page.
They deny our existence.

BLOG IT, Y0
Sign In

Monday, March 07, 2005

Jes in the SunDial

Jes wrote an ARTICLE (<--- Link) for the SunDial.

I encourage you all to do the same.

Love,

Me.

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

cows would eat us if they could, thus we ought to eat them first, or else, we will live in some treterous, "Planet of the COWS." Ergo, concordantly, vis a vis, we must eat all animals before they take over the Earth. Just look in those big brown cow eyes, there evil resides! In addition, if Vegetarianism was the rule and not the exception, Miss America Fear Factor would just plain suck!

12:22 PM  
Blogger jes said...

Go here, anonymous:

http://www.puuba.com/jes/baby-meat.jpg

Goddamn bastard cows.

2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it is quite the prediction I am afraid. Babies are delicious to animals. If we value the safety of our babies, then it is our imperative to eat meat, now! How many babies must be sacrificed before we realize this? It is only a matter of time. Documents have been siezed at certain farms that suggest the eminent threat of the cows. While not all of the information has been adequately verified, it is suggested that the national security level be raised from "yellow," to "tasty." It is going to be either them or us, and I for one am not going to get a lobotomy from a cow. So unless you want to support the vile terrorism of the cows, you must eat them. Did I mention that the cows have ties to Al Queada?

2:56 PM  
Blogger jes said...

Al Queda Cows? Yeah, I alwasys suspected.

5:18 PM  
Blogger Harper said...

Jes, you are very convicted in your vegitarianism, you remind me of a chirsitian in the sense that you are trying to impose your ideals on to me as if you've discovered some objective path. Kudos for the effort, let's not forget one thing...as in the animal kingdom(the world that exists outside of humans, and human civilization) there is a nautral order (called the food chain) where animals identify there position in the hierarchy of the animal kingdom through the "food chain". i.e. lions, kill and eat everything ergo lions are king of the forest. Let us not forget that we are at the absolute tipy tip top of the food chain. It is due to this innate quality that we have the right to kill other animals for food, i say other because we shouldn't forget that we are animals too. Although i disagree with the way theses animals are farmed and treated, i don't believe that taking a stand of vegitarianism or even worse, veganism, is going to change anything except the way your body metabolizes substances. Look, the cows should be free to roam the land and heavily sedated before being slaughtered but these animals have no natural right or inalienable right to better treatment or anesthesia before death. The lions kill without using sedatives or making sure that the animal has lived outside of captivity.

2:14 PM  
Blogger jes said...

Joe,
I have bad news for you. Humans are not at the top of any type of natural food chain. Shooting a cow in the head is not related to any type of evolutionary food chain. In fact, if you want to talk about evolution, the human body does not do well with meat. I was talking with someone who told me meat take 72 hours to digest. It rots in your system. For animals intended to eat meat, it only takes 3 hours. Besides, if you want to use a "natural" type of argument to justify our behaviour, you are going to run into some other serious problems. Also, don't cofuse the dutys of moral agents (rational humans) with those of moral agents (babies, for instance). Thus, your lion example runs very short in defeating my view.

8:43 PM  
Blogger jes said...

excuse, me babies (along with retarded humans and animals) are moral PATIENTS, not agents as my type-o would suggest.

8:54 PM  
Blogger jes said...

also, take another look at the word "right" in the way you use it. I think you might find it seriously troubling if you took it a few steps in another direction.

8:56 PM  
Blogger Harper said...

i'm sorry, when i say 'right' i mean that we have the right to do whatever it takes to survive, just as you have the right to be vegitarian. as for the idea that humans dont' do well with meat i ahve two things: first, let's not forget that as civilized humans, we cook our meat which alters it's form,so animals don't ingest meat in the same way we do, second, i don't know where you got that statistic but 'meat' is a broad word and if you think that every type of meat that exists will take a human 72 hours to digest then you have been misled. Also let's take something else into account, the average life of humans now is anywhere from 70- to 80 years, or more. Few animals have a life span that is this long, the point i'm trying to make is that 3 hours for an animal that lives 10 years is proportional to 72 hours for an animal that lives 70 years. Finally, although guns and such might not contribute to our natural evolution or even be part of the criteria for ordering the food chain, i don't see how you would think that we aren't at the top, sure it might be due to the aid of our technology but that just goes to show that we would be at the pinnacle of the food chain b/c we have the ability to utilize technology, i don't know...to think we aren't at the top of the food chain just seems wrong to me. Also, morals are only applicable to other humans, are animals moral?? You say that they are not, so if they do not heed to some standard of morals that govern the actions within their world, or govern the relationship between their world and ours, why should our morals hold any wieght (even though, i myself think it does) when governing actions in a human-animal situaion?

3:39 PM  
Blogger jes said...

Hey! Good points. First and foremost, the biological ideas that come along with eating meat really don't undermine my argument against why we shouldn't eat it. But either way humans don't need meat to survive, ESPECIALLY in today's society. It is fully possible to live without it. And while the claim we are on the top of the food chain because we CAN kill any animal certainly doesn't mean we ought to. When you start talking about what is "natural" and how that makes this activity of eating meat acceptable, you run into a few problems. The first is of course defining natural in a nonarbitrary fashion, the second is showing how that definition then allows humans to act in such a way. Just because an activity is "natural" that does not mean is is morally acceptable. Suppose rape fall within your definition of natural. Is it then acceptable? I should hope not. And I did not mean say morals were only applicable to humans, I ment to say that only adult humans (with some capacity for reason) can act morally, and can have moral responsibility. Babies have no moral responsiblity, don't we still have moral obligations and duties to them? Certainly we do. I believe animals and babies are morally similar in this sense. For my support of that claim you can reread the article we are debating about.

9:33 PM  
Blogger jes said...

I meant red meat takes 72 hours to digest. which is correct. Meat rots at a rate independant of who is eating it. I don't think citing proportional lifespans is valid when justifying which beings are naturaly adapt at consumtion of what they are eating. just because we can eat red meat doesn't mean we should eat it, regardless of how it is digestede.

10:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home