Belief in God or "gods" is Not Necessary For One To Have Morality, and For One To KNOW Their Morality Is Objective
First off, there can be a divide created, if you wish, between humanity. Lets say this divide does exist, and lets define the divide as humanity having two sets of persons, and lets say they are 1. people who believe in objective morality, and 2. people who think morality is whatever you can dream up, or whatever you can get away with, or simply whatever you wish to do.
This article is only for persons who DO believe in objective morality. Persons who do NOT might find this interesting also, or possibly not at all. Me personally, I believe what is or is not good, and what is or is not bad, in regards to actions, can be defined; and for me, this is because I have some sort of abstract Christianity as my personal system of belief. Why "abstract?" Well, if you think of your common fundamentalist Christian, or if you are an atheist, then you'll likely find I'm quite a lot different than your preconceived notions about what is or is not a "Christian," or that I simply don't much fit your notions of "what Christians think." This article, however, is not about me, and is meant to be informative, inflammatory, or, heck, how would I know what sort of reaction anyone might have? Regarding the common social media evangelical atheist in the USA, there is no more disgusting lot of pseudo intellectuals, and yes, I'm speaking in generalizations. Persons that will copy and paste scriptures without bothering to understand any of the very complex contextual nuances in order to argue for their own "intellectual or moral superiority," well, there's nothing intellectual or moral about being ignorant, so no need to bother with those people.
Now, in no way at all do I believe that one must be any sort of theist to agree to the existence of objective morality; and most certainly one need not be any sort of Christian, fundamentalist, or reasonably science literate and having understanding of complex forms of literary expression and "abstract" as myself. In no way at all is an atheist not able to even believe the SAME sort of objective morals as "good" as I do. In fact, there is no reason why one need to believe in any sort of God or gods for there to be a very sound and concrete basis in their minds as to why there is an absolute objective morality existing and definable. Facts of the matter are, when it comes to an individual, their acceptance or not of things deemed objectively moral or not, is immaterial. A single consciousness hardly exists. We humans are not individuals so much as we are parts of the whole, and so, no man is an island; we are social animals.
Atheism And Objective Morality; Sam Harris vs William Lane Craig
Plainly, all manner of theist absolutely believe in an objective right and an objective wrong, and besides the theist, a large number of atheists do also believe in the objectivity of right and wrong actions. All the persons who do NOT believe in objective morality, however, are all atheists or agnostics. For these reasons, that the more intelligent or observant of human nature among the atheist and agnostic crowds DO believe in an objective moral code uniform for all humanity; it is something I think we ought to take a look at.
Obviously, there need not be a God or gods one purports to have faith in the existence of for one to have a defined and objective moral code; but one surely must have reasoning as to why it is objective this code of theirs exists. While I admit I'm merely a strange Texan who loves to write on the web, and that I am hardly a "professional philosopher," and while I also will say I think Dr. William Lane Craig is a superior debater to Sam Harris, and I also do not even like Sam Harris as a human being much at all; Sam's reasoning in the following video for exactly WHY there is an objective morality, regardless of whether or not anyone or everyone accepts it, is quite good, and logically sound reasoning in my estimation.
If you do not know who Sam Harris or Dr. Craig are, well, then the following video should really open your eyes, as these two persons are two of the more vocal and celebrated persons for anyone to debate with concerning many of our world's more pressing social issues. No, debates accomplish not much of anything, but they are quite a nice show, and the following debate is very entertaining for myself, and anyone interested in such things. The opening sections where Harris and Craig first speak are the best of it, following that, the speakers both regress into pettiness; sort of like a Facebook thread, but with a larger and more pedantic audience.
Objective Morality And Atheism
According to Dr. Harris, if someone does not value evidence, there is no point in providing them evidence as to why your claim concerning a thing is correct; by the same token, if someone does not value logic, then no logical reasoning will suffice for a person should you be attempting to show via logic why it is you say whatever it is you say. This all makes perfect sense, and so we should look at just what exactly are the atheist's logical reasons for saying this objective morality notion is valid.
Objectivity itself is a term we use to describe reality as it is based on evidence we do have. If someone were to say morality is NOT knowledge based, then this is completely unacceptable for the exact same reasons a belief in creationism is unacceptable, as creationism isn't based on accurate knowledge of the reality we can and have verified through data. Morality is objective, and is verifiable using scientific means. For example, if you imagine a culture in which women must all wear a giant black tarp over their bodies, and the reason they must wear them is both sexes hold a belief that should a woman's body be shown, then a man won't be able to control his self for this - then we can without a doubt state this culture is based on very damaging and utterly false principles; for it is simply NOT true that men have no self control, and it is absolutely damaging to the entire culture for 1. women to be blamed for the lack of control a male may have, and 2. men to believe they're not responsible for their own actions. We can say without any doubt at all, and with the surety of many sciences this notion of tarp wearing in this culture of falsehoods is objectively immoral for the reasons given.
Now, the only way I've seen given one can use to say in the face of objective morality verified by science as false, is for one to say, "Well, humanity doesn't matter. Why would humanity itself be of any value, more or less than crickets, or slugs, or apes, or any other creature?" These people who say that, however, are not persons who PRACTICE that statement, as they typically eat all manner of life form, be it carrots or steak; and this clearly DOES show a belief in humanity having value above and beyond that of other life forms.
Leo Tolstoy "Eating Meat Is Immoral"
Is Eating Meat Immoral?
All over the world there are increasing numbers of persons who believe eating meat to be immoral. Is eating meat immoral? No, I do not think it is at all, and I will go on to tell you why. First I want you to appreciate the Leo Tolstoy quote up above, and we can source that quote and verify the image and quote above aren't merely someone's thrown together internet meme, it is an actual Leo Tolstoy quote.
First off, Leo says "A man can live and be healthy without killing animals." Okay, this is often true, but it isn't absolute truth; as Leo has no idea what situations a man may wind up involved in, and also what more complex situations a man may become involved in were he to be a Pater familias, or family father. In this world of increasingly depressed economy and stagnant wages in the face of the federal reserve chief forever printing more and more dollar bills; the facts are that very often a man can feed himself and his family much better by purchasing meat, than he can without doing so. It is plain knowledge a burger costs less than a salad anywhere you are, and so, should a man be responsible for his health, the health of his wife, and their children; then also have to deal with the economic burden of providing shelter, heating, cooling, running water, clothing; so forth and so on - then it can not then be immoral for a man to provide meat as a sustenance. Besides the burger costing less than the salad, the burger also has a higher calorie count, and therefore can get a body "further down the road" by providing more energy to burn, and less frequent occurrence of physical hunger.
It's pie in the sky stuff to think the world is going to go vegetarian or, heaven help us, vegan. It's not going to happen any time soon, and certainly not in your lifetime, regardless of who you are reading this. Tolstoy follows up his first false notion with a "therefore," followed by, rather predictably, another falsehood, which is as follows; "If he eats meat, he participates in the killing of an animal for the sake of his appetite." This is false, as the human consumption of food is at times a life or death matter, and not a matter of simply satisfying a vain urge for pleasure. If a man can get further down the road for a one dollar burger than he can for a five dollar salad, and he's only got a dollar and some change to begin with, then no man can say the burger eating man is wrong for having been poor and hungry, or that he chose to eat a burger merely because he enjoyed the taste of meat, or (goodness me!) the death of a cow.
Now I'm no dedicated fool, if and when I say or do things foolish, and I am so lucky as to live and later learn from it all, then so much the better. Let's now think about my scenarios concerning burgers and salads. It is simply plain fact you get more calories from a simple burger than a salad, and it is verifiable as well the simple burger, almost anywhere you go, will cost you less than a salad, and is therefore more nutritional value for the money spent. I know there are reasons for this, and perhaps society at large, and humanity at large have a overwhelming desire for meat so as to cause these economic scenarios to be so. Economics, of course, is forever supply and demand. Be all that as it may, when one is very poor, as I am very poor, then one must get by for as little as possible, as I actually have as little earned income, and nothing in the way of handouts from government, as anyone in the USA that anyone could know. Is it more moral to starve than to eat meat? Only a dedicated and well fed fool would say such a thing, and that from the depths of a heart bent on some false morality's sanctimonious desires.
Gary Yourofsky - The Ultimate Vegan
Gary Yourofsky, A Madman
I used to think of Gary Yourofsky as a decent fella, heck, for about a week, I thought him a saint; but then I found out about Gary. I'd like to share some quotes of Gary's here, but I can not do so because I'm certain they'd violate Google's terms of service, and most certainly they'd violate InfoBarrel.com's TOS. The quotes I'd like to share SHOULD violate any decent website or corporation's terms of service in regards to a page having advertising on them, for they are vicious, vile, inhumane, and hate filled quotes only a total psychopath or sociopath could state; such a man is Gary Yourofsky. His Wikipedia page, however, should you wish to see how disturbed this man is, features these quotes.
Concerning the quotes by Mr. Gary Yourofsky, who is, by the way, the most famous "moralist" of the vegan movement in the USA, Canada, and Western Europe, are something that can ONLY be compared to quotes by another famous moralist of our times, Theodore Robert Bundy, the serial killer, who stated that all value judgements are only ever subjective. Looking at Mr. Yourofsky's quotes closely, one realizes he's the same sort of person as Bundy, as he's related sexual abuse, and torture as the same sorts of things as Mr. Bundy proved himself to have valued the same way as "Captain Vegan." These are your vegan moralists, my friends, these Yourofsky minions, who value the lives of pigs the same as they value their own lives (according to their WORDS) or your lives, dear readers.
Clearly, veganism isn't a thing belonging to the people for the ethical treatment of animals, and veganism doesn't belong to Gary Yourofsky either. Veganism belongs to whoever decides to be a vegan; and probably there are more persons who are into veganism who are much more sensible humans, and will not equate the lives of mice with the lives of their sons or daughters; as their natural biological systems will prevent such moronic notions from becoming realistic or practiced philosophy. Chief among the vegans of the world who show a very high sense of morality, and who do consider and know morality to be objective, are the vegans of the Rastafari culture, and those are the ones to look to for leadership should you be interested in the vegan lifestyle.
Vegetarianism, The Happy Compromise
What I hope to have provided a glimpse of above is that veganism is often a very radical sort of thing, and especially here in the USA. Not only is it radical, and fronted by persons promoting and suggesting the use of extreme violence against persons who eat meat or are vegetarian, it is also often accompanied by the most annoying sort of evangelicals you'd ever have to tolerate. They may not be knocking on your doors wearing suits and asking if you have a minute to hear the word of Gary Yourofsky, but if you see them in the cities or on the web, some of these people can really be aggressive about the whole thing. Again, if you're looking for sane leadership in vegan living, please look towards the Rastafari culture of Jamaica; or just people who aren't so insecure with their diet and values they feel the need to use some radical measures of guilt to force it upon you or others.
Vegetarians also don't eat meat, and these persons generally refrain because they don't like the idea of eating animals; but they're sane enough to realize the consumption of animal protein is important to humans, who are rather obviously omnivorous creatures. Vegetarians do consume animal protein through eating cheese, eggs, drinking milk, or using butter. Vegetarians also don't think of it, in the general sense, as some sort of theft from nature should they choose to enjoy honey. If you watched the Gary Yourofsky video, and I hope you either did or will, you should note, and pay special attention to how at the end of the video he related the most derision upon dairy farmers, and he did so in order to provoke the vegetarians who see his presentation. Gary thinks of vegetarians as weak minded folk who're likely prospects for total vegan conversion. Yourofsky's presentation is all cheap tricks. The entire thing comes down to a notion I do agree with, and lots of other persons will agree to as well, and that is the notion that the acts caught on Yourofsky's hidden (and illegal) cameras are immoral acts, and by extension, lots of factory farming and factory farmers engage in atrocious acts. The thing Yourofsky implies is that all factory farms are just this way, the way he presents them in his video, but that is not truth, and truth is also that nobody has to get their meat from factory farms.
Other major problems with evangelical veganism include their total disdain for persons who wear or use leather in any way. What these evangelical vegans refuse to see is that humanity has been using animal skins for clothing and to make shelters with for longer expanses of time than any vegan could likely put a number to. Quite plainly, without the usage of animal hides for clothing and shelters, and food; humanity would have never survived in diverse climates, especially the very very cold ones. If vegans or Mr. Yourofsky in particular wish to value house fly's the same as they value their children, well, I'm no one to prevent them speaking their minds, however, should they put those values into action, they'll soon find themselves involved in criminal cases where the neglect of a human being is the crime at hand.
Vegan morality is entirely based upon the notion that humans are NOT above animals, but merely the equals of all animals. According to the vegan ethos it is immoral for a man to kill a house fly who's landed on his potato, as the house fly is an equal creature to the human...but the potato, of course, is lesser than either. Vegan ideals of morality don't work for humans in the preservation of the self, the family, the community, or the society. Oh one could surely say, "in today's world, we don't have to use animal skins for shelters, for clothing, and there is no need to steal honey from bees, steal milk from cows or goats!"..so forth, and so on; but that scenario itself is based on the condition that our society's infrastructure be maintained. What would the vegan moralist say should electricity grids fail, gasoline supplies dry up, would they then wait for new shipments of cotton for clothing? Would a drought and famine change their ideals? I bet it would. It isn't common for a human to allow themselves to starve to death because all there was to eat were animals or things "stolen" from the animal kingdom.
"MEAT IS IMMORAL!" They'll scream, regardless of never having lived in circumstances where the facts are one can eat meat, or just die; and typically these same persons then pretend to be animal rights activists, and they'll say, "ALWAYS SPAY AND NEUTER!" Well, if everyone ALWAYS spay'd and neutered their dogs, and also their cats, then very damn obviously, and within not too many years, the domesticated dog and the domesticated cat would cease to exist. These are the crazy connundrums often presented by the vegan animal rights activists; and if you're not bothering to take a moment and point out the logic errors in those memes of theirs, you're not doing all that you can do to improve the lives of your fellow humans, and your own community.
From Paleo To Fast Food
Common Sense And The Paleo Diet
The problems of this world are not that eating meat is immoral, it simply isn't; the problems are often more that people rather than seeking common sense solutions, instead subscribe to radical evangelical positions such as veganism, or anything related to PETA. I don't have to prove to you that always spaying and neutering our beloved cats and dogs will lead to the extinction of both species, that is simple 1+1=2 logic, but logic never got in the way of evangelicals, they just preach irrationality because it gives them a sense of moral superiority.
It's my general belief these radical and extreme organizations, organizations like PETA, and belief systems like veganism, these only exist towards our detriment, and so the wealthiest human beings are all very fond of seeing to it those radical and illogical voices are heard both wide and far. The purpose of such beyond the pale systems is division, and this is why we know their names and their ideals, as they are not solution oriented, but division oriented.
While it can be seen plainly that Americans eat too much meat, and there is also some environmental damage for the over fondness of meat, and of course, health damage from consuming copious amounts of hormone laden animal flesh from animals fed GMO toxins that not only are torturous and cruel to the animals, but also give adverse health effects to the consumer; we can also plainly make a sound and logical case that it is not the eating of meat that is bad, it is the manner of its creation, and the proportions in relation to our diets which is detrimental. In matter of fact, beyond proving veganism as a ridiculous fad in the incarnation provided by persons such as Gary Yourofsky, we can also, and by using facts and data available to all, prove that veganism is BAD for thr planet.
Well, what is the paleo diet, Todd?
First let me tell you I do not particularly subscribe to any diet at all. I only read extremely heated debates about diet on the internet, and then I go and think about these things, and eat whatever the heck I want to eat. Using all the skills I do have, I've come to the conclusion the Paleo diet is the single best diet anyone could subscribe to. You may or may not realize this, but one could partake of the paleo diet without ever eating meat, that isn't an issue at all. What the paleo diet is, is very simple, it means one eats lots of raw fruits and vegetables, some fish, and some meat; and never ever ever eats bread or any sort of processed anything. When you look at the high cost of health care, the high incidence of obesity, and the failure of most medical doctors to actually be physicians rather than pharmaceutical dealers; and then you step back and realize the biggest problem for the most people is the crap they eat; well, you're on your way to being a proponent of the paleo diet.
Now back to objective morality. Lets assume there are people in this world who love you. I assume there most certainly ARE people who love you, and if you are reading this, then damnit, I nearly love you myself, and you might be in that group of persons I absolutely love despite myself. Now lets imagine you were suffering from a disease, taking all those hideous pharmaceutical corporation meds your medical drug dealer prescribed you, and you then found your condition not improving, but progressing. Now let us presume you met another person who told you about a diet that could possibly cure your condition, but the diet included eating fish and meat, but not factory farmed fish, and not factory farmed meat; and let us furthermore imagine your life and health were important to the lives and health of so many loved ones that should you turn down such a diet, and refuse to heal yourself; that we'd all have to consider your actions as being immoral, for no man or woman is an island, we are all interconnected, and part of a continent. Well, such a story I have for you here, and I hope very much you'll learn from this. Remember to mind your mitochondria.
Thanks for reading.
Amazon Price: $19.95 $11.00 Buy Now
(price as of Aug 19, 2013)