# Burger King Shifts Policy on Animals



## LaurieR (Feb 9, 2006)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/b...&ex=1175745600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print


In what animal welfare advocates are describing as a “historic advance,” Burger King, the world’s second-largest hamburger chain, said yesterday that it would begin buying eggs and pork from suppliers that did not confine their animals in cages and crates.

The company said that it would also favor suppliers of chickens that use gas, or “controlled-atmospheric stunning,” rather than electric shocks to knock birds unconscious before slaughter. It is considered a more humane method, though only a handful of slaughterhouses use it.

The goal for the next few months, Burger King said is for 2 percent of its eggs to be “cage free,” and for 10 percent of its pork to come from farms that allow sows to move around inside pens, rather than being confined to crates. The company said those percentages would rise as more farmers shift to these methods and more competitively priced supplies become available.

The cage-free eggs and crate-free pork will cost more, although it is not clear how much because Burger King is still negotiating prices, Steven Grover, vice president for food safety, quality assurance and regulatory compliance, said. Prices of food at the chain’s restaurants will not be increased as a result.

While Burger King’s initial goals may be modest, food marketing experts and animal welfare advocates said yesterday that the shift would put pressure on other restaurant and food companies to adopt similar practices.

“I think the whole area of social responsibility, social consciousness, is becoming much more important to the consumer,” said Bob Goldin, executive vice president of Technomic, a food industry research and consulting firm. “I think that the industry is going to see that it’s an increasing imperative to get on that bandwagon.”

Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said Burger King’s initiatives put it ahead of its competitors in terms of animal welfare.

“That’s an important trigger for reform throughout the entire industry,” Mr. Pacelle said.

Burger King’s announcement is the latest success for animal welfare advocates, who were once dismissed as fringe groups, but are increasingly gaining mainstream victories.

Last week, the celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck announced that the meat and eggs he used would come from animals raised under strict animal welfare codes.

And in January, the world’s largest pork processor, Smithfield Foods, said it would phase out confinement of pigs in metal crates over the next decade.

Some city and state governments have banned restaurants from serving foie gras and have prohibited farmers from confining veal calves and pigs in crates.

Temple Grandin, an animal science professor at Colorado State University, said Smithfield’s decision to abandon crates for pregnant sows had roiled the pork industry. That decision was brought about in part by questions from big customers like McDonald’s, the world’s largest hamburger chain, about its confinement practices.

“When the big boys move, it makes the entire industry move,” said Ms. Grandin, who serves on the animal welfare task forces for several food companies, including McDonald’s and Burger King.

Burger King’s decision is somewhat at odds with the rebellious, politically incorrect image it has cultivated in recent years.

Its commercials deride “chick food” and encourage a more-is-more approach to eating with its turbo-strength coffee, its enormous omelet sandwich, and a triple Whopper with cheese.

Burger King executives said the move was driven by their desire to stay ahead of consumer trends and to encourage farmers to move into more humane egg and meat production.

“We want to be doing things long before they become a concern for consumers,” Mr. Grover said. “Like a hockey player, we want to be there before the puck gets there.”

He said the company would not use the animal welfare initiatives in its marketing. “I don’t think it’s something that goes to our core business,” Mr. Grover said.

Beef cows were not included in the new animal welfare guidelines because, unlike most laying hens and pigs, they continue to be raised outdoors. Burger King already has animal welfare standards for cow slaughter, he said.

The changes were made after discussions with the Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, known as PETA.

PETA, in particular, has started a series of high-profile campaigns to pressure fast-food companies to change their animal welfare practices, including a “Murder King” campaign that ended in 2001 when Burger King agreed to improve its animal welfare standards to include, among other things, periodic animal welfare audits.

Since that time, PETA officials said they had met periodically with Burger King officials to encourage them to adopt tougher standards. About a year ago, the Humane Society began its own efforts to encourage Burger King to improve its farm animal standards.

Mr. Grover said his company listened to suggestions from both groups, but ultimately relied on the advice of its animal welfare advisory board, which was created about six years ago and includes academics, an animal welfare advocate, an executive of Tyson Foods and Burger King officials.

“Where we think we can support what our animal advisers think is right, we do it,” Mr. Grover said.

The changes apply to Burger King suppliers in America and Canada, where the chain purchases more than 40 million pounds of eggs a year and 35 million pounds of pork, he said.

A reason that such a small percentage of purchases will meet the new guidelines is a lack of supply, Mr. Grover said.

Burger King plans to more than double its cage-free purchases by the end of this year, to 5 percent of the total, and will also double its purchases of pork from producers who do not use crates, to 20 percent.

Most laying hens in the United States are raised in “battery cages,” which are usually stacked on top of each other three to four cages high. Sows, during their pregnancies, are often kept in gestation crates, which are 24 inches across and 7 feet long.

Matt Prescott, PETA’s manager for factory farm campaigns, argued that both confinement systems were filthy and cruel because the animals could barely move and were prone to injury and psychological stress.

Under Burger King’s initiative, laying hens would be raised in buildings where they would be able to wander around. Similarly, sows would be raised indoors, most likely in pens where they would be able to move freely.

“This is not free range, but simply having some room to move around inside a controlled environment,” Mr. Grover said.

While converting barns for crate-free sows is relatively simple, Ms. Grandin said it was much more difficult and expensive to raise cage-free hens because not nearly as many birds fit in one building.

Burger King officials say they hope that by promoting controlled-atmosphere stunning, more slaughterhouses will adopt the technology. Currently, there are only a few in the United States using the technique, and most of them process turkeys.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The absolute horror that goes on in the name of producing cheaply priced meat for our consumption would turn most meat-eaters into vegetarians if they had to indulge in the practices themselves or simply do without. "Fortunately" for most meat-eaters they can easily turn a blind eye to what is done to bring them their daily meat as the practices are carried out away from the public eye in closed facilities by armies of low paid workers.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

I'm still not going to eat at BuggerKing. Ever.


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

XX) 



> 17 November 2006 (USA)
> Genre: Drama
> Tagline: The Truth Is Hard To Swallow
> Plot Outline: An ensemble piece examining the health risks involved in the fast food industry and its environmental and social consequences as well.


XX) 

I just watched this the other night.
Movies likeFast Food Nation and Super Size Me! really will turn you off of fast food.
And some day I will also be turned off. Maybe with the next movie.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I love a good steak, but want to see the animals treated more humanely while alive. 

I don't trust the maniacs at PETA who are ultimately after a world in which my dog could not live with me, and no meat is eaten.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The absolute horror that goes on in the name of producing cheaply priced meat


Yes, let's make it more expensive to return meat consumption to a status indicator. 

Just kidding. Technology is getting better and society wealthier, so many things can happen with little to no material impact on such things. Advances in regulatory controls should keep the full implications in mind, though.

I can't wait for GMO "meat tubes"!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When business is good, I buy free-range eggs. They don't taste any better but I like it when I can afford to make the chicken happier. These things are more likely to occur voluntarily when people have more disposable income.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> The company said that it would also favor suppliers of chickens that use gas, or “controlled-atmospheric stunning,” rather than electric shocks to knock birds unconscious before slaughter. It is considered a more humane method, though only a handful of slaughterhouses use it.


Not that they don't already feed and inject steriods and antibiotics into these chickens, but what kind of gas are they using, does any of it transfer to the meat and have their been longterm studies done to determine how safe it is.


----------



## MacBookPro (Jun 22, 2006)

Going vegetarian 8 years ago was one of the easist, and smartest, moves I have made in my 53 years on this planet.

MacBookPro


----------



## DANdeMAN (Oct 20, 2006)

MacBookPro said:


> Going vegetarian 8 years ago was one of the easist, and smartest, moves I have made in my 53 years on this planet.
> 
> MacBookPro


I didn't know a laptop could do that! What will they think of next?...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I love a good steak, but want to see the animals treated more humanely while alive.


Stick with Kobé steaks then.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Mmmmm. Kobe. Had it last year at our staff party. Very good.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Had it in Japan $$$$$$ even 25 years ago - PC Choice says they have Kobe burgers.
......one wonders.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

PC Memories of Kobe--they're alright if you're need a burger in a pinch... but definitely not Kobe.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oh yeah that's right.....what a con.

On the money dialogue.. MF - you're out of luck on the real McCoy but you might be okay on wagyu 

http://www.canadianwagyu.ca/economic_traits.htm 



> Kobe Beef and a pleasant dining experience
> Where in Toronto can I find a restaurant that serves Kobe Beef without any pretentious overtones?
> 
> 6 replies so far
> ...


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The absolute horror that goes on in the name of producing cheaply priced meat for our consumption *would turn most meat-eaters into vegetarians if they had to indulge in the practices themselves or simply do without.* "Fortunately" for most meat-eaters they can easily turn a blind eye to what is done to bring them their daily meat as the practices are carried out away from the public eye in closed facilities by armies of low paid workers.


Unless you believe animals are on this earth for human consumption purposes...


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

great, now the fake chicken burger and bacon will be tougher...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Unless you believe animals are on this earth for human consumption purposes.


..and women chattels...


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> ..and women chattels...


Yeah... good example... not.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Care to defend that it's not.??

We may make ethical choices about destroying other life for our own benefit but offloading the responsibility on religious tomes is a cop out and smacks of unwillingness to take responsibility.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> ..and women chattels...


Ah Geez, give us a break, "OH LEARNED ONE".

I tire of the crap you continue to spew. My "chattel" of 42 years as you call her, is much brighter than you. Just put a cork in it.

By the way, how did YOUR marriage work out?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Lars said:


> Unless you believe animals are on this earth for human consumption purposes...


That would imply some belief in a higher power, creationism, etcetera.

Nah, we just evolved this way. Our teeth prove it. We humans are designed to eat meat. We are predators.

As for Burger King and their plans, all the power to them. Don't think for a minute they are doing it out of good will to nature and all that. It's purely a marketing ploy.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Lars said:


> Unless you believe animals are on this earth for human consumption purposes...


Not sure what your point is here Lars, so I will explain what I was trying to say in case it was misunderstood.

Whether or not most meat eaters today believe animals are only here to serve us, I believe that most of todays meat eaters (although not all) if told it was either butcher their own animal or do without could actually stomach what goes into even a relatively humane raising, dispatching and butchering of a pig or a cow, never mind some of the practices that go on in industrial abattoirs or even witnessing crated pigs in hog barns for instance. There's a good reason that much of the meat industry is done in very private and secure settings behind large walls. Most people who eat meat have never even seen a pig or cow up close, never mind had any involvement in raising an animal or killing one for their table.

I know many meat eaters who can't even stand some of the things involved in preparing meat, like stuffing a turkey or cleaning a fresh fish so rely on others to do that for them too. It's probably a good thing that some of the big players in the meat industry are seeking to do things a little less violently in the name of the millions whose delicate sensibilities couldn't deal with what it takes to bring that steak to their barbecue or sausages to their pan.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In case you forgot -Sinc I reply in kind. I did not bring up the "spin" I replied as GA and GT did.

••••••••••••

Marriage?? - I was awarded custody of both my children despite my not requesting it. Tell you anything?? There are reasons people part - good ones. Something you fail to understand in your 50's fairytale universe..
."Oh look at me I've been married 40 years"......like you deserve a medal or something."

I'm extremely proud of being able to bring up my kids in their teen years on my own.
The glowing smile on my son's face blows off your sour ill considered comment. 

•••



> WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2006
> Great ape's rights go before Spain's parliament today
> 
> *Spain's parliament is to declare support for rights to life and freedom for great apes on Wednesday*, apparently the first time any national legislature will have recognized such rights for non-humans.
> ...


http://monkeydaynews.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-apes-rights-go-before-spains.html

I suspect over time we will see this concept applied to a wider range of species....I support it fully. We share this planet with other intelligences and needs be careful in our choices of how we feed ourselves.

Interesting that Buddhists are pretty peaceable chaps...something in the diet maybe.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> That would imply some belief in a higher power, creationism, etcetera.
> 
> Nah, we just evolved this way. Our teeth prove it. We humans are designed to eat meat. We are predators.
> 
> As for Burger King and their plans, all the power to them. Don't think for a minute they are doing it out of good will to nature and all that. It's purely a marketing ploy.


Our teeth prove we are omnivores, not carnivores. We have more teeth that are designed to grind things, and would be relatively ineffective in tearing raw flesh. Our "canine" teeth aren't very sharp. If it wasn't for cooking meat it would be a difficult diet for us. We evolved from vegetarian apes, but our adaptability and cleverness allowed some of us to be able to use tools to kill animals and make fires to cook the meat. Take a look in a cats mouth, that's a carnivore, every tooth is pointy and sharp and no flat molars.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah chimps are very casual carnivores. There was paper a while back that tied brain evolution to meat rich diets for early hominids. We're past that "need".

I enjoy a good steak but would greatly prefer it from a source that did not inflict pain on another animal. Reducing that suffering I think is a admirable goal.

GT - do you really care why?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> That would imply some belief in a higher power, creationism, etcetera.


Yeah, and we all know that silly, irrational superstitions like that are really rare in society 



> Nah, we just evolved this way. Our teeth prove it. We humans are designed to eat meat. We are predators.


Ever have a look at the dentition of other primarily herbivorous/frugiverous primates? Have a look in a gorilla's mouth and you'll find canines way bigger and sharper than yours, despite their strictly vegetarian diet. Canines are great for puncturing thick/tough fruit rinds, and are also frequently sexually selected characters, causing them to grow way out of proportion.

Furthermore, if you have a look at the rest of the human digestive system, you'll find that it is very poorly suited to the digestion of meat (long, alkali intestinal tract, lots of carbohydrate processing enzymes, etc.), and very well adapted to digesting various types of vegetation. Our ancestors were facultative omnivores who got most of their nutrition from plants. One of the reasons we have an insatiable appetite for animal fats is that our ancestors were never in a position to consume too much of these compounds.

Hunting certainly played an important role in our development of technology (although, the propensity of early hominids to kill each other was probably more than enough of a driver for weapon development), but we certainly don't need to eat meat, and there is ample scientific evidence that we'd all be a lot healthier if we didn't.

Cheers


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Okay, time to play the ehMac Guessing Game. It's worth 1000 points!*

Here we go: is bryanc a (1) vegetarian; (2) omnivore; or (3) lapsed vegetarian?

Anyone can play.





bryanc said:


> Yeah, and we all know that silly, irrational superstitions like that are really rare in society
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_*Points are worth nothing._


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have no problem eating meat. Whether I would want to raise an animal and kill it is like asking me whether I would want to raise every vegetable I eat and process it. We're a specialized society and we can choose between those tasks we want to do and those we prefer not to. Slaughtering is a messy business. 

I would be happy to eat a steak that's been cloned, but until then I see no inherent ethical reason not to eat meat. You can create all sorts of intersting arguments about which animals should and shouldn't be eaten (cuteness, intelligence, friendliness, scarcity) but there's nothing inherently wrong with eating them.

I could argue that millions of earthworms die in agony as construction shovvels tear them in half. Supposing the excavator knowingly severed a nest of bunnies to build a house? Two different reactions I'll bet. But why? We just hapen to have reasons (intelligence, vertebrate/mammallian sympathy, cuteness) for favouring bunny over worm.

Now if you want to bring religion into it...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yep - did you happen to see 7 Years in Tibet - hilarious and touching moment of monks lifting earthworms to safety.

It's an ethical choice for each with a dollop of - maybe the discipline and known health and ecological benefits tip the balance in self interest - regardless of the "pain and suffering" aspect.



> Whether I would want to raise an animal and kill it


Not quite the same with veggies - emotional bonding with animals is well established. Yumm long pork  ..similar concept.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Yumm long pork  ..similar concept.


 I dare you to tell me you've eaten long pork.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I would be happy to eat a steak that's been cloned, but until then I see no inherent ethical reason not to eat meat.


This confuses me. Are you saying that, hypothetically, if we could grow steaks in a tissue culture system making it un-neccessary to slaughter animals to obtain this tasty but unhealthy luxury item, it would become inherently unethical to eat meat? Or do you mean that if we could get the steaks without killing the cow it would become unethical to kill the cow?

Either way, if there's no ethical consideration now, why would there be one then?



> You can create all sorts of intersting arguments about which animals should and shouldn't be eaten (cuteness, intelligence, friendliness, scarcity) but there's nothing inherently wrong with eating them.


You could. But you'd have a lot of trouble defending them philosophically unless they were internally consistent, and performed well in the many tests of ethical systems that philosophers have devised of the centuries.

I've studied ethics quite a bit, both formally and informally, and have found that most ethical systems, when fairly applied, will find fault with actions that cause unnecessary suffering.

Given that eating meat is unhealthy, unnecessary, causes suffering and is damaging to the environment, it becomes very difficult to justify it's consumption.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Given that eating meat is unhealthy, unnecessary, causes suffering and is damaging to the environment, it becomes very difficult to justify it's consumption.


Very little of what we do is "necessary" but most does result in suffering and environmental damage (every step you take...). This is simply another framework to assume original sin through which humanity can strive for a purer state of existence, but is always doing "bad". Whether your justification is a 2000 year old book, a flying spaghetti monster or the above, it's all the same thing: personal belief. Others may or may not have the same.

So we work together with our different beliefs and, apparently, a constant drive to dream up ethical systems to make ourselves feel bad while allowing for the opportunity of labelling others as worse.

Consider the lily...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I dare you to tell me you've eaten long pork.


Chewed a bit of long pork rind from time to time - likely even a bit of my kids and I know a chunk of lover or two


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Very little of what we do is "necessary" but most does result in suffering and environmental damage (every step you take...). This is simply another framework to assume original sin through which humanity can strive for a purer state of existence, but is always doing "bad".


I don't agree. It seems obvious to me that, as rational agents, we should consider the consequences of our actions and strive to minimize the damage we do to ourselves, our fellow sentient creatures, and our environment. We have to eat, and we are strongly driven to many other activities. All I'm saying is that we should consider the effects of those actions and try to minimize/mitigate the negative impacts.

Reducing, or preferably eliminating, your consumption of meat is one easy way in which we can do this. There are obviously many others.

Nothing spiritual, magical, irrational, or otherwise arbitrary about it.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> This confuses me. Are you saying that, hypothetically, if we could grow steaks in a tissue culture system making it un-neccessary to slaughter animals to obtain this tasty but unhealthy luxury item, it would become inherently unethical to eat meat?


Not at all. I'm saying that if I could avoid offending YOUR delicate sensibilities by eating a piece of cloned meat instead of meat from an animal I would do so.




bryanc said:


> I've studied ethics quite a bit, both formally and informally, and have found that most ethical systems, when fairly applied, will find fault with actions that cause unnecessary suffering. Given that eating meat is unhealthy, unnecessary, causes suffering and is damaging to the environment, it becomes very difficult to justify it's consumption.


Given that YOUR existence here on the Earth is already damaging to the environment, choosing to procreate as you did becomes very difficult to justify. Driving? Impossible to justify. Public transit merely spreads the blame around. 
Owning a dog or cat? Barbaric!

Here's an interesting question to work on, given your expertise in ethics.

If a human foetus--not classified a human being under some ethical codes--has already been aborted in an abortion clinic, would it be wrong to eat it? Or feed it to a dog? Let's include the assumption that the foetus wasn't aborted specifically to be sold as food.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> If a human foetus--not classified a human being under some ethical codes--has already been aborted in an abortion clinic, would it be wrong to eat it? Or feed it to a dog? Let's include the assumption that the foetus wasn't aborted specifically to be sold as food.


Protein is protein - there is no right or wrong answer to this - it's a choice which is the foundation of ethics.

Current mores would say no to the eating. Your personal ethical choice and circumstances may result in a different decision.

Some men starving on the ocean have died rather than eat long pork - others have lived.
Me - I'd partake....with respect.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> It seems obvious to me that, as rational agents, we should consider the consequences of our actions and strive to minimize the damage we do to ourselves, our fellow sentient creatures, and our environment. We have to eat, and we are strongly driven to many other activities. All I'm saying is that we should consider the effects of those actions and try to minimize/mitigate the negative impacts.
> 
> Reducing, or preferably eliminating, your consumption of meat is one easy way in which we can do this. There are obviously many others.
> 
> ...


"Negative impacts" is subjective based on personal belief. Identifying sentient creatures and "our environment" separately is another personal distinction. Personal assumptions that lead you to where you are. It is arbitrary to apply beyond the personal. 

Your assumptions may or may not be relevant assumptions to others. Like standard religious pursuits, however, it is dressed up in a way to apply to others. Same thing Rand did. People seem to want a guidebook (outside framework) for "doing good". Even some atheists seem to want one.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now wait a minute Beej- there ARE some assumptions that found human experience/existence
He's not advocating a single approach - rather a methodology that is based on some universals about pain and suffering and not fouling our nest. Even fish recognise fair play - it's in the genes.

The DEGREE to which those are undertaken is a practical choice by the individual.
Some of them are a species survival fundamental.

Bryanc is speaking of a method of determining results of choice.....not looking it up in a book.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Protein is protein - there is no right or wrong answer to this - it's a choice which is the foundation of ethics.


Exactly. Different ethical systems could be applied to deal with the question. You can't just pull an ethical system out of thin air and apply it to everyone else. 



> Given that eating meat is unhealthy, unnecessary, causes suffering and is damaging to the environment, it becomes very difficult to justify it's consumption.


Eating the aborted human foetus might be considered unnecessary. In moderation it wouldn't be unhealthy. It does not cause suffering and does not damage the environment.

All we have left is "unnecessary"--which describes much human activity. Shall we eliminate all unnecessary activities?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Um ethics are personal. Mores are the result of common ethical choices in a community at a certain time.
Bryanc is speaking of a methodology to reach an ethical decision.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Bryanc is speaking of a methodology to reach an ethical decision.....


I've applied his methodology and found the eating of aborted human foetuses meets the requirements of ethical behaviour under that system.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> rather a methodology that is based on some universals about pain and suffering and not fouling our nest. Even fish recognise fair play - it's in the genes.
> 
> The DEGREE to which those are undertaken is a practical choice by the individual.
> Some of them are a species survival fundamental.
> ...


So what are the universals beyond pure self-interest? The others are self-interest in treatment of other animals, trees, grass, personal feelings, others' feelings, health, taste, entertainment, etc. Or just statements of hard-wired biological responses or medical likelihoods.

Some people enjoy watching animals fight (including fighting people). That's "unnecessary". Look closer at how the "methodology" is constructed, MD. 

The outcome (recommended choice) is built into its structure. That's just a book that, ostensibly, lets you choose your own adventure.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gee Beej- you actually nailed it in your last line. That's the essence of ethics tho not of mores.
Your ethical choices are often bounded by mores of the day.

Ethical choices do not occur in a vacuum and are bounded by choices of others and society at large including structural bodies such as laws.

The phrase "methodology is constructed" is poorly struck  ...... Methodology is process not result.

Self interest is a interesting concept to hang ethical choices off of ....in my view it IS reality ....which many are uncomfortable with.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> The phrase "methodology is constructed" is poorly struck  ...... Methodology is process not result.


That's the point MD. What you referred to as a methodology was actually constructed in a way to give a certain result. Choose your own adventure, ostensibly, but you will end up on the same last page.

Because the methodology required key assumptions it inserts false objectivity (someone else's subjectivity). It, therefore, functions more as a guidebook to a destination of somone else's choosing. Maybe you'll like it when you get there. 

"Ethical choices do not occur in a vacuum and are bounded by choices of others and society at large including structural bodies such as laws."

Regarding personal ethical choices, sure. It's in our interest. Gladiatorial matches don't seem ok anymore. Oh wait...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> That's the point MD. What you referred to as a methodology was actually constructed in a way to give a certain result.


Exactly. And following the stacked line of reasoning to produce unintended consequences, we arrive at the logical statement that it is unethical to eat aborted human foetuses because it is unnecessary. However, all other unnecessary activities are not necessarily unethical.

I'll take Jiminy Cricket as my conscience, rather than try to apply such a stacked--and faulty--set of not-methodologies to my daily existence.

I think the normal response at this point is to attempt to modify the "not-methodology" to avoid providing unintended consequences while attempting to preserve original intended outcome.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I think the normal response at this point is to attempt to modify the "not-methodology" to avoid providing unintended consequences while attempting to preserve original intended outcome.


New Testament? beejacon


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

Macfury said:


> When business is good, I buy free-range eggs. They don't taste any better but I like it when I can afford to make the chicken happier. These things are more likely to occur voluntarily when people have more disposable income.


Don't agree there, we get free range eggs and the taste is markedly better. One week when the farm was snowed in, we bought eggs. Our son came up to me with his supermarket egg half eaten on a plate and said "What is this? It looks like an egg, but it doesn't taste like one."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> methodology required key assumptions


Yes - tho the assumptions are not the methodology - Bryancs ethical approach is based on certain assumptions - they don't predict the outcome entirely - how he goes about ascertaining values and choices arising out of those assumptions is the method.

In my mind we cannot be without evolution endowed assumptions as a basis for ethical decisions.
We may add beyond that but trying to negate them ( ie condemning self interest/self preservation ) in a personal ethical construct produces decisions that induce conflict within the individual aka guilt and perhaps destructive social actions as well.

Criminals often have mores and individual ethics within their community that may well work for THAT community and/or individual but can be destructive to the wider community and other individuals..

•••



> "What is this? It looks like an egg, but it doesn't taste like one.


excellent evolutionary based anchor - "taste" - big time preservation driver.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've eaten free range hens that taste quite bland--also some of the more delicious poultry I've eaten. Grocery store hens usually not so good but a occasional winner. same with the eggs. Good and bad batches.

I prefer duck eggs anyway!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You get a bad egg evolution will make your choice to eat or not for you


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Given that YOUR existence here on the Earth is already damaging to the environment, choosing to procreate as you did becomes very difficult to justify. Driving? Impossible to justify. Public transit merely spreads the blame around.


Difficult, but not impossible. One of the primary reasons we decided to have only one child was to limit our impact on the environment. It was a compromise between the biological imperative to reproduce, and the rational observation of human overpopulation and high environmental impact.

Public transit dramatically reduces the environmental impact per-person-distance, so it is obviously a preferable way of getting around. Sometimes it's not feasible, so driving (or flying) is justifiable. I walk and ride my bike as much as I can.



> Here's an interesting question to work on, given your expertise in ethics.
> 
> If a human foetus--not classified a human being under some ethical codes--has already been aborted in an abortion clinic, would it be wrong to eat it? Or feed it to a dog? Let's include the assumption that the foetus wasn't aborted specifically to be sold as food.


Easy-peasy. Eating human tissue has some potential to propagate pathogens (prions in partciular), but I wouldn't see it as an ethical dilemma (unless the emotions of the parents or other people were part of the consideration). I certainly wouldn't have any trouble feeding it to the dog if there were no better use for the tissue.

And I should congratulate you on so quickly getting the hang of one of the primary mechanisms of testing ethical systems in philosophy... these 'fringe case' hypothetical problems are a very good way of finding weaknesses in ethical theories.

My ethical paradigm (and Beej is right to think of it as a method or process) is a variant on J.S.Mills' Utilitarianism. I did a minor in philosophy as an undergrad, and studied ethics and epistemology most. I've thought about this a lot, but I enjoy constructive criticism, so bring it on.

Cheers


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Eating human tissue has some potential to propagate pathogens (prions in partciular),


Mad Human Disease....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Easy-peasy. Eating human tissue has some potential to propagate pathogens (prions in partciular), but I wouldn't see it as an ethical dilemma (unless the emotions of the parents or other people were part of the consideration).


Great--so now we move on to all animals who die of natural causes. No problem if we make steaks and fritters out of them?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Respectfully so 

Really depends on your tolerance for carrion tho. Taste it......ma nature will let you know right quick.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Difficult, but not impossible. One of the primary reasons we decided to have only one child was to limit our impact on the environment. It was a compromise between the biological imperative to reproduce, and the rational observation of human overpopulation and high environmental impact.
> 
> Public transit dramatically reduces the environmental impact per-person-distance, so it is obviously a preferable way of getting around. Sometimes it's not feasible, so driving (or flying) is justifiable. I walk and ride my bike as much as I can.


You determine a personal tradeoff, giving up personal wants for other wants (less undesirable impact). This is a false accounting, in that you seem to separate what you want (fly somewhere to see someone, convenience, less time in travel, etc.) from some external undesirable impact. You seem to have externalised a personal want. 

If you buy a big screen TV instead of a patch of rain forest to protect or RRSP savings, you're making a choice between wants. Nothing fancy going on there, or ethical beyond just personal preferences. Buyers remorse feels bad, after all. 

So the "method" is pretty standard: doing what you want, when you want. What you want takes into consideration many things and attaches values. 

http://www.despair.com/individuality.html


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> If you buy a big screen TV instead of a patch of rain forest to protect or RRSP savings, you're making a choice between wants. Nothing fancy going on there, or ethical beyond just personal preferences. Buyers remorse feels bad, after all.


Well exactly. Even Bryanc's false argument of virtuous choice is rather disingenuous--he decided to between "biological imperative" to have many children and his virtuous desire to avoid environmental impact and wound up at the magic number of one child. You don't need to do complex calculations to realize that having one child--the point at which bryanc was satisfied--was the starting point of the equation, not the conclusion.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> What you want takes into consideration many things and attaches values.


Yep - and even the values can shift on circumstance. Where and how the values derive from is really the heart of the problem......after that it's a hierarchy issue and some values can truly be conflicting.
Staying in a marriage for the "kids sake" for instance - it's hard to know which might be worse - battling parents or single parenting - for kids OR for parents.

In cases like that we often hand off the ethical choice to the legal system to determine.....for good or ill.

The other aspect is "self determined" set of ethics versus "handed down" which I suspect ay be more to Bryanc's point.
Consciously constructing and thinkning about the values and their attached importance versus "going with instinct or the flow".

Handed a piece of long pork in a starving life boat some will ponder - others wolf it down without a thought - others flat out refuse or becomre physically ill.

Somewhat different drivers for all three approachs to an ethical issue that might mean life or death.

In the case of a vegetarian, you may well consciously choose not to eat meat.
Faced with starvation however....a different value assigment kicks in.

••

MF most equations of this sort are reversable in the sense of working forward or backward to determine validity/satisfaction for the individual psyche....it's called balancing the pros and cons 


•••

Hey Bryanc - do you consider vegetarianism as a meme?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The other aspect is "self determined" set of ethics versus "handed down"


I find that self-constructed ethical codes rarely result in any major difficult choices. They're full of safety valves to let a person do pretty much what he or she wants to do with very few restrictions. The person who has a "green" ethical code will argue that the code requires them to take public transit "most of the time," for example. In all likelihood, the code:
a) _followed_ the person's desire to take public transit to feel virtuous, but did _not_ lead those decisions.
b) allows the person to feel virtuous based on exactly the number of non-transit automobile trips they are already comfortable with.

Externally applied ethical codes often result in difficult choices.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Boiled down "do want I want " versus "what I'm told to do."

I'd tend to leave guilt and virtue out other than as driving values. You are treating "feeling virtuous" in a pejorative manner.
Self delusion is a huge factor in these choices.

I'd like to hear your "difficult choice" situation derived from external "rules" - concrete example.

Personally I think a self derived code tends to be more deeply embedded and when a conflict arises might cause more angst than the "told to do it" version on tablets.

••

"most of the time" is hierarchy and implies that that there ARE say self preservation aspects that trump "lesser" concerns. ie getting to a hospital.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Yep - and even the values can shift on circumstance. Where and how the values derive from is really the heart of the problem......after that it's a hierarchy issue and some values can truly be conflicting.


All sorts of choices to be made based on personal assumptions.

For example, many people seem to implicitly have an "Eden" assumption, whether read in one book or many different books. Red Mars dealt with this in an interesting story format.

The Eden assumption generally has some falsely objective "best" state (at least implicit; sometimes explicit) for the environment and "unnecessary" human activity pushes us away from that state (expels us from the garden). 

The best state is generally assumed to be what would happen either without us or with us existing at the bare minimum.

As you can see, this assumption has all sorts of subjective value judgements to define the fudge-terms (generally to help the believer not reach the obvious conclusion of suicide; maintenance of the underlying "want" heirarchy in opposition to the made up story), and the initial assumption itself fabricates an objective moral evaluation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Wow Beej you just gave me a headache 
Thou art a self fulfilling prophecy...perhaps a self defining one.

Your message IS the message to mangle McLuhan,


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Some self-determined ethical codes create difficult choices--most don't.

"Feeling virtuous" isn't used in the pejorative, but I use it to illustrate that "feeling virtuous" is a special kind of virtue, likely of considerable more value to that individual than anyone else. It isn't virtue in an external sense. It is the "feeling of virtue" that is the reward.

The external ethical code (perhap a religious or vocational one) might work well until a difficult choice needs to be made. Then there's a conflict between the actual internal ethical code and the one that worked reasonably well in the absence of a difficult decision.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A personal example. I was raised in a household that didn't involve anything like my own internal (but not fully developed) libertarian code. A lot of discomfort in trying to reconcile behaviour based on internal ethics vs. external ethical codes. 

External ethics told me that I should defer to authority. When the school principle asked me to read his Thanksgiving list to an assembly as though they were my own words, I balked. I personally wasn't thankful for items on that list because they violated my own sense of what belonged there. I refused to read it, even though there would have been no external fallout to read that list to the assembly. Very painful battle between the principal and me, but I held tough and wound up reading an expurgated version of the list, involving only those items that represented my personal feelings on the matter.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good for you.
Had a similar battle with an unbelievable principal - arrogant and unthinking - I called him a little Hitler for one of his artbitray decisions and refused to apologize - relieved of class for a few days.

Quite satisfied the next year when the board turfed him and had to bring in a specialty head to repair thedamage he had done with teachers and students. - Great guy he was. The vice principal actually apologized to ME over the principal's action.

I have no truck with arbitrary authority 

That said I do think it's mostly genetics driving core attitudes and willingness to stand on values.
The values themselves??......an amalgam of taught and discarded and experientially derived.
I do think working through pro/con arguments mentally a valuable exercise to avoid knee jerk reactions.

For instance supporting nuclear energy is a conflict for me - lesser evil given that there are too many of us and it's already in place.
So there is a situation where I might NOT support it being introduced but will support it since it's already in place.

Day to day
Driver on the right has the right of way versus Dead right  ...depends very much on size of offending vehicle and/or driver.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Even Bryanc's false argument of virtuous choice is rather disingenuous--he decided to between "biological imperative" to have many children and his virtuous desire to avoid environmental impact and wound up at the magic number of one child. You don't need to do complex calculations to realize that having one child--the point at which bryanc was satisfied--was the starting point of the equation, not the conclusion.


You can be quite a prick sometimes. How is it that you think you can read my mind and know how many children I would like? As it happens, you're *way* wrong, but that's not what's so offensive.

What's offensive is that you respond to someone making a genuine ethical argument by presuming that any claimed considerations are purely self-serving.

Perhaps you're just projecting your own hypocrisy?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Hey Bryanc - do you consider vegetarianism as a meme?


Of course.

cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Meme: Figured as much - thought it had enough "structure" attached to qualify.

••

I'll make one quibble with you....in my mind all decisions are "self serving" - that includes those that take into account societal benefit over personal preference. It can even be up to and including suicidal choices.

I suspect you are objecting to the use of "self serving" as an implied insult.

A form of the knee jerk - "don't be selfish" judgement the holy rollers like to fling about when the plates are passed.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I love a good steak, but want to see the animals treated more humanely while alive.
> 
> I don't trust the maniacs at PETA who are ultimately after a world in which my dog could not live with me, and no meat is eaten.


Something is wrong in the Universe... I find myself agreeing with Macfury.

PETA ... PEOPLE for EATING TASTY ANIMALS


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> I'll make one quibble with you....in my mind all decisions are "self serving" - that includes those that take into account societal benefit over personal preference. It can even be up to and including suicidal choices.


bryanc: MacDoc is right. All decisions are ultimately self-serving. Even supposedly selfless ones. We choose to do what we can live with. Sometimes we choose to do something and we realize we can't live with it. It goes no farther than that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> You can be quite a prick sometimes. How is it that you think you can read my mind and know how many children I would like? As it happens, you're *way* wrong, but that's not what's so offensive.


No, what I was saying was that you became the arbiter of what you considered an acceptable environmental footprint--one child. Your "biological imperative" became the driving force. Zero children is the best choice for the environment. Therefore bryanc's "biological imperative" trumps the environment. 

Self-serving, no?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> No, what I was saying was that you became the arbiter of what you considered an acceptable environmental footprint--one child.


We are all the arbiters of what we consider acceptable, by definition.



> Your "biological imperative" became the driving force. Zero children is the best choice for the environment. Therefore bryanc's "biological imperative" trumps the environment.


My biological self-interest is for as many children as possible. My enculturated and rational analysis is that I could manage 2 or 3. But my ethical analysis is that I cannot justify that degree of impact on the world when it is clearly in such bad shape.



> Self-serving, no?


Only in the sense of 'enlightened self interest' which includes my consideration for the future of my species and the well-being of others.

Cheers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Only in the sense of 'enlightened self interest' which includes my consideration for the future of my species and the well-being of others.


The greatest well-being of the environment involves having no children. 

By choosing against a non-specific and arbitrary future choice (two, three, four, five children) that will never be visited, you decided that one looked like a pretty grand compromise.

I plan on dropping 50 gallons of raw sewage into Lake Ontario. I relent and decide that I will only throw 10 gallons into the lake and send the other 40 for treatment. Aren't I a great fellow? Thanks to me, the ecosystem needs to deal with 40 fewer gallons of raw sewage than it might have! 

Say it with me: "Biological imperative trumped the environment."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I plan on dropping 50 gallons of raw sewage into Lake Ontario. I relent and decide that I will only throw 10 gallons into the lake and send the other 40 for treatment. Aren't I a great fellow? Thanks to me, the ecosystem needs to deal with 40 fewer gallons of raw sewage than it might have!


Good point. Enlightened self-interest is something people tell themselves to try and rationalise personal assumptions into a less subjective state. Again, defining another class of "wants". Don't you want to be enlightened too? That's got to be better than wanting a hot dog. Some objective moral arbiter told me so! 

I don't drive out of laziness and cheapness: Pure self-interest. Someone gets a hybrid SUV and tries not to use it 5 days a week: enlightened? 

Apparently my personal religion (none) doesn't give me sufficient warm and fuzzies and I should convert to one of these new ones.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The greatest well-being of the environment involves having no children.


Yes. But my concern for the environment is not the only factor driving my behavior or I'd have killed myself long ago. What part of 'balancing' are you having trouble understanding?



> I plan on dropping 50 gallons of raw sewage into Lake Ontario. I relent and decide that I will only throw 10 gallons into the lake and send the other 40 for treatment. Aren't I a great fellow? Thanks to me, the ecosystem needs to deal with 40 fewer gallons of raw sewage than it might have!


In this scenario, the guy who throws less sewage into the lake is less evil. If it really is in your immediate self interest to pollute the lake, and you really think you could get away with it (this is why we have laws, BTW), and you choose to limit your pollution out of concern for the well being of others, then it is fair for you to say that you weren't as unethical as you could've been.



> Say it with me: "Biological imperative trumped the environment."


Say it with me: I voluntarily limited my reproductive capacity out of concern for the future of the planet. I absolutely agree that having no children is better for the environment, but the point here is that, as is usually the case, there are conflicting objectives, and one needs to find a balance.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> Apparently my personal religion (none) doesn't give me sufficient warm and fuzzies and I should convert to one of these new ones.


My lack of religion, and lack of respect for arbitrary authority is what drove me to study ethics and build a rational, internally consistent moral framework. Many people seem perfectly happy to have their morality dictated to them, and I do think it's interesting that these rules are often (but not always) congruent with most well established ethical systems.

I think you're instinctive reaction is to dismiss anyone's efforts to construct a coherent ethical framework as 'religion.' Mine is certainly not a religion, and I'd welcome some rational criticism.

Cheers


----------



## genuineadvantage (Mar 14, 2007)

ewwwww I hate fast food anyways XX) XX) XX) XX) XX) XX) XX) XX)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> , but the point here is that, as is usually the case, there are conflicting objectives, and one needs to find a balance.


You found *YOUR* balance. The one that satisfied *YOUR *desire to have one child. 

Very easy to construct an ethical system that supplies a range of safe outcomes based on "balance."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Are we in a timp warp here? - missing 2 days of posts??
Never mind - seems something odd with my settings.
Did anyone else lose touch with ehMac for an hour or so??

I'm now going to first post of a thread instead of last.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MF - ethics ARE personal.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> You found *YOUR* balance. The one that satisfied *YOUR *desire to have one child.


The whole point of my using this example was that I had to balance my desire to have *more* than one child with the negative consequences of having *any* children, forcing me to compromise.

What's I've been getting irritated with you about, is your presumption that I've just made up a justification after I decided. There's not much point of an ethical, or any other decision-making system if it only works post hoc.

You don't seem to understand that some people make ethically informed decisions that don't translate to 'just doing whatever I want.'


----------



## heavenlyevil (Mar 23, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Not sure what your point is here Lars, so I will explain what I was trying to say in case it was misunderstood.
> 
> Whether or not most meat eaters today believe animals are only here to serve us, I believe that most of todays meat eaters (although not all) if told it was either butcher their own animal or do without could actually stomach what goes into even a relatively humane raising, dispatching and butchering of a pig or a cow, never mind some of the practices that go on in industrial abattoirs or even witnessing crated pigs in hog barns for instance. There's a good reason that much of the meat industry is done in very private and secure settings behind large walls. Most people who eat meat have never even seen a pig or cow up close, never mind had any involvement in raising an animal or killing one for their table.
> 
> I know many meat eaters who can't even stand some of the things involved in preparing meat, like stuffing a turkey or cleaning a fresh fish so rely on others to do that for them too. It's probably a good thing that some of the big players in the meat industry are seeking to do things a little less violently in the name of the millions whose delicate sensibilities couldn't deal with what it takes to bring that steak to their barbecue or sausages to their pan.


Of course then there are those of us that have raised their own pig/chickens/rabbits for the goal of eventual consumption. Sure, they had names and were pets for the time they were alive, but once the dinner bell tolled that was the end of it for them.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> My lack of religion, and lack of respect for arbitrary authority is what drove me to study ethics and build a rational, internally consistent moral framework. Many people seem perfectly happy to have their morality dictated to them, and I do think it's interesting that these rules are often (but not always) congruent with most well established ethical systems.
> 
> I think you're instinctive reaction is to dismiss anyone's efforts to construct a coherent ethical framework as 'religion.' Mine is certainly not a religion, and I'd welcome some rational criticism.


There's not much to criticise, B. You are taking self-interest and layering on your own beliefs (assumptions dividing your self-interest into categores) and the system produces logical results from a personal starting point. It's pretty basic stuff.

Like I've said before, I can respect faith, but tossing it off as a rational creation is a joke. It starts with one or more key assumptions of belief (often claimed as "rational") and then simple logic takes over. Objective Concept A exists due to *complexity of nature, instinctive reactions, earthquakes, whatever*. That's how you convert an "is" into an "ought". You just skip the middle-Man but that's not the important part. The important part is the starting assumptions.

Your "enlightened" behaviour is your own personal delusion and I'm happy for you. Whatever floats your boat. But it does not establish Enlightened any more than other religions.

"You don't seem to understand that some people make ethically informed decisions that don't translate to 'just doing whatever I want.'"

That's your personal characterisation of the standard religious assumption. You assume into being an ethical framework as separate from doing what you want. Yours not having a beard or throwing thunderbolts doesn't make it particularly special or rational. It's a coping method.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> MF - ethics ARE personal.


And so are many of its assumptions. But as Beej points out, often not entirely rational.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej - religions have god heads....that's an assumption and enormously funds the dogma that flows from it and the ethical adherence to that dogma by individuals.
There is no "rational structure" needed - it's handed down and the choice is how narrowly or broadly an individual adheres to the edicts.

Bryanc nor I for that matter are bound by a godhead assumption underlying the ethical choices we make.
It's very different.
Yes there are bounds that evolution as primates and our specific genetic endowment put on us ( more than I'd like ).

There is no handed down component as there is with any god head based religion.
Decisions are based on the process - thesis, antithesis, resolution towards consciously identified goals and may change as further knowledge/experience accrues.
Trying to slot all ethical systems into religion is foolish.
There are secularly derived and religiously derived...... just as there are secular bodies of law like English Common Law and religiously derived like Sharia Law.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"not entirely rational" ...that's a judgement call as to what constitutes "rational" - one could say little of what evolution endows us with is "rational" on the individual level yet is superbly so often on the macro scale of species and even tribes.

Founded on application of knowledge and open to change as knowledge broadens.

versus

Handed down edicts rarely open to change.

Secular versus religious

Within each individuals choose broadly ( I drive safely - skip lent but give to the poor ) or narrowly ( I drive the speed limit - observe lent AND give to the poor ).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> There's not much to criticise, B. You are taking self-interest and layering on your own beliefs (assumptions dividing your self-interest into categores) and the system produces logical results from a personal starting point.
> 
> ....
> 
> Yours not having a beard or throwing thunderbolts doesn't make it particularly special or rational. It's a coping method.


Would you argue that all ethical system are irrational? I.e. do you grant the logical distinction of deontological vs. consequentialist systems?

My system is a rather modest, and I think quite rationally defensible variant of Millsian Utilitarianism. The only assumptions, if you can call them that, are that pain is bad, and pleasure is good (I argue that these are neurological, rather than arbitrary characteristics of some living things, and it's true that much of my ethical reasoning derives from the arguable belief that the ability to suffer is an emergent property of complex neurological activity. However, if you accept that premise, I think my reasoning is sound). There are, admittedly, many points along the logical chain from these first principles where there is uncertainty, and requirements for judgement (with all the consequent problems of faulty data). But it's the best I've been able to do so far. And, I think it's important to note, that I'm willing to consider alternatives, and change my system if I am convinced such changes would improve it (i.e. lead to actions more likely to avoid pain &/or cause pleasure).

I'm willing to concede that, without knowing the underlying reasoning, one might not be able to distinguish the outcomes from deontological or other arbitrary systems, but that doesn't make it fair to characterize all ethical systems as arbitrary or 'religious.'

Obviously, morality is personal, but it is not necessarily arbitrary.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej - religions have god heads....that's an assumption and enormously funds the dogma that flows from it and the ethical adherence to that dogma by individuals.
> There is no "rational structure" needed - it's handed down and the choice is how narrowly or broadly an individual adheres to the edicts.
> 
> Bryanc nor I for that matter are bound by a godhead assumption underlying the ethical choices we make.
> ...


Religion does not require a Godhead, that's just a covering for the rules. It's easier to focus on fear etc. than a collection of assumptions. Handed down has to do with propagating the assumption(s). ie. "Successful" religion.

People personally delude themselves setting up artificial ethical jars all the time. Splitting their wants along non-existent ethical lines. That they feel the need to assume ethical lines (coping) is the standard irrationality of religion (or secular objective ethics, if you prefer). It brings into existence a greater meaning than is there; a greater meaning that is used to help make decisions.

And defining religion isn't as clear as you imply.

Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Would you argue that all ethical system are irrational?


In context ("What if"), they can be fun thought exercises. If we make the following assumptions, what's the answer? Great fun.

If someone actually uses them to assign different ethical value to their wants, they're as delusional as any other system that assumes into existence non-existent things (objective moral arbiter). Sorry, but I respect your sky-daddy no more than anyone else's. I can respect your faith, but not your fabricated morality.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You are confusing memes with religions.

All religions are memes not all memes are religions.

Think a Farmer's Almanac versus NOAA - both are guidelines for certain behaviours.

The better term may be to say I have ethics derived from philosophical approach, not a religious one.

In what you've outlined there is no difference between secular or religious.

Philosophy or religion.

•••

Beej - he has no sky daddy - out of that flows YOUR error.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You are confusing memes with religions.
> ..................................
> Beej - he has no sky daddy - out of that flows YOUR error.


Religion is not necessarily as narrowly defined as you think. 
..................................
Nope, he just doesn't call it that. I can assume into existence a "thing" that wants me to do A so I agree in opposition to my unenlightened wants (except when I really want to  ). I can assume into existence morality A that I feel I should follow in opposition to my unenlightened wants (except when I really want to  ). 

They're both delusional assumptions simply meant to help people cope with their decisions (their wants). Neither one is particularly special or "better" or "more rational" than the other. They're both just made up. Fine, whatever coping mechanism you want.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> Beej - he has no sky daddy - out of that flows YOUR error.


His Sky Daddy is his set of assumptions and rationalizations designed to give weight and meaning to his personal decisions.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej - no note of godheads in philosophy- rational process is not a requirement for religions -belief is. Belief without proof is the antithesis of secular thought.
They are NOT the same.

Sharia law and secular law ARE different.

Ethics derived from thesis/antithesis process ARE arrived at differently than those religiously derived.

You can't meld religion and religion just because it fits YOUR thesis.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Beej - no note of godheads in philosophy- rational process is not a requirement for religions -belief is. Belief without proof is the antithesis of secular thought.
> They are NOT the same.
> 
> Sharia law and secular law ARE different.
> ...


First, read the link. Religion isn't just defined one way (ie. your way).

Second the starting assumption is the belief without proof. It has "is" observations extrapolated into "ought" (at least, that's the usual method). No rational process is required, but pseudo rationale is usually used. From the start, rational processes are generally used in both. Morality (God said, or I assumed it) means A and B and C. That's a lot of religious scholarship, by the way. Thesis and antithesis, assuming certain things.

As for melding "religion and religion" , again, if you don't like the terminology because of how you define religion, fine. Let's just discuss delusional beliefs leading to ethical frameworks that seek to artificially divide our wants on moral grounds; to create enlightened and unenlightened categories.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD, here's an excerpt from the link (that you should read before assuming religion to be what you think it is...your view is one of many).
...............
All religions present a common quality, the "hallmark of religious thought": the division of the world in two comprehensive domains, one sacred, the other profane. [1] Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life".
...............
Definition of religion

Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[3] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

Other religious scholars have put forward a definition of religion that avoids the reductionism of the various sociological and psychological disciplines that reduce religion to its component factors. Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence."
...............


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You are loading your phrases to reach a conclusion.
Religions CAN partake of thesis/antithesis within their frameworks but include belief without proof.
Non religious memes CAN be followed religously ( without examination or question )

•••

I agree better to shift but you continue to stress "belief" within a secular framework continuing to try and equate the two.
••

Ultimately ALL differentiation is derived from our physical senses and brain function so in that aspect every thing is illusionary.

Given that our brains DO differentiate.
Exploration of that differentiation leads to physical actionable knowledge - hand on hot stove = knowledge - teach kid about - try to avoid repeat. Actionable.
That's not a belief - it's a repeatable demonstrable knowledge based in the physical universe upon which to hang an ethical framework.
That's secular.

An individual can also choose NOT to require physical observable knowledge base to form your ethical viewpoint around.
That's religious.

••

There a few religions that blur between philosophy and religion - Buddhism notably as there is no godhead - Buddha was a historical figure but it partakes of the rituals of religion and seeks a metaphysical state that does not require testable proof that such a state exists.

••

Looking at that there is no difference between Linbeck's view of religion versus philosophy.

Your religious scholars I'd say had the better take. They acknowledge the sacred and divine aspect to differentiate from the secular.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I agree better to shift but you continue to stress "belief" within a secular framework continuing to try and equate the two.
> ••
> An individual can also choose NOT to require physical observable knowledge base to form your ethical viewpoint around.
> That's religious.
> ••


You're getting close, MD.

Now look at the belief/assumption and "knowledge base" used to make it so. Either way, Science can be invoked, but there is belief/assumption. As I said, most common is assigning an Ought to an Is. Heck, B has stated an assumption: "pain is bad, and pleasure is good" Think through that one, carefully. 

Then ask why someone makes the belief/assumption to insert into their decision making. They are coping mechanisms to separate wants. If you want to call one religion (according to your specific definition) and the other secular, fine. They are both irrational except in the broader sense of being rational because people want to do them.

You're getting very close.

Re: Religion and Philosophy
Intertwined very closely. You may, however, have been thinking in other terms that, for me, I would have called assumption and logic. The latter identifies the rational fallout of the former. Now, certain kinds of assumptions form a religion. But that's not the only way to look at it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Spare me Beej - getting close. 
In my mind and I believe Bryancs you are entirely off base in your premise.

Chalk and cheese.

Having as a prerequisite *Observable actionable repeatable phenomena* to anchor ethical decisions 

is very *different* than one that does NOT have that prerequisite.

You can base your poker decisions in the belief luck is running with or against you.....OR you can base them on the information provided by the math.
They are not the same.

That's why I prefer to own the casino.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Having as a prerequisite *Observable actionable repeatable phenomena* to anchor ethical decisions


Nope, missed it. Is and Ought. You're still distinguishing decision from ethical decision. Because something Is a certain way does not mean it Ought to be a certain way (want vs Good and Bad).

The irrational is commonly the assumption/belief that because something Is a certain way that it Ought to be some way and therefore Good and Bad are fabricated, as opposed to just preference. It is an important distinction.

You are getting close, though.

"You can base your poker decisions in the belief luck is running with or against you.....OR you can base them on the information provided by the math."

This should get you there, but you need to think less about blue balls and more about the issue at hand. Nowhere do you need to assume Good or Bad. You have statistics, but one can choose to assume/believe luck, the badness of casino profits, some form of rebalancing if you've lost enough, continuation of a winning streak etc. That's not religion versus philosophy. That is personal assumption/belief. If you believe a spirit does it it's religion, if you just believe it, it's rational? Nope.

An assumption/belief written 2000 years ago is not inherently more or less valid than one written one hour ago. Knowledge has progressed and can found more informed understanding, but moral assumptions have not changed much. Less middle-man seems to be the biggest change.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where does ought come in to observable.

Ought is belief based not proof based.

That's just abut the worst tangle of a purported position I've come across.

Out of experience that is repeatable flows a knowledge base and out of the knowledge base flows observable consequences which can conflict depending on where they are placed in the heirarchy of values bringing about an ethical dilemma.

The gamer sets the rules/heirarchy...and there in lies a major difference.

If it's dice I can set out to win OR lose - and do so on a mathematics basis for optimal result for that goal.
or I can trust to luck.

For the religious - the gamer does NOT set the goals nor the rules.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> For the religious - the gamer does NOT set the goals nor the rules.


The religious believer attributes goals and rules to a higher power. The non-believer observes the same process and attributes the rules and goals to the believer, and insists that the buck stops there.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I don't have time to give this a proper response, but one important point that distinguishes utilitarian-derived ethical systems from others is that the what 'ought' to be desired is not based on assumptions or other a priori givens. It is a de facto truth that pleasure is better than pain, and the rest follows.

I'll try to get back to this when I have time for a more complete contribution.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Where does ought come in to observable.
> 
> Ought is belief based not proof based.


Precisely. The religious and ostensibly secular make Ought assumptions based on Is.

To repeat:
"pain is bad, and pleasure is good" Think through that one, carefully. It is not a tautology as it may appear to some.

Now do you see the assumption-to-belief?

To repeat:
"You're still distinguishing decision from ethical decision."

The distinction between a decision and an ethical decision is what? Belief.

Hint: The gap is in the assumption-to-belief step.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> W
> 
> That's just abut the worst tangle of a purported position I've come across.


You guys just don't get it do you?

For the record:

MACDOC IS ALWAYS RIGHT.

ABOUT EVERYTHING.

HIS MIND IS IMPECCABLE AND NOT TO BE QUESTIONED.

GOT IT?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> what 'ought' to be desired is not based on assumptions or other a priori givens. It is a de facto truth that pleasure is better than pain, and the rest follows.


A de facto truth? Look closer B, it is a belief/assumption. You're welcome to it, but I will make fun of it because you have attempted to falsify a logical basis.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> A de facto truth? Look closer B, it is a belief/assumption. You're welcome to it, but I will make fun of it because you have attempted to falsify a logical basis.


I can have five kids then if it pleasures me-because the pleasure is better than the pain that I would face without them. 

A rapist thinks his pleasure is more important than some else's pain. 

And of course, such things can be quantified because pain and pleasure are judged on an objective scale.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I can have five kids then if it pleasures me-because the pleasure is better than the pain that I would face without them.
> 
> A rapist thinks his pleasure is more important than some else's pain.
> 
> And of course, such things can be quantified because pain and pleasure are judged on an objective scale.


A simplistic analysis. In all of these cases we can easily determine that the pleasure/pain calculus of the unethical behaviour is negative. (all pleasure and all pain counts equally... and you have to consider long term effects as well as short term effects, but it's basically a cost-benefit analysis).

With respect to eating meat, it is less obvious, but with a modern perspective, it seems quite clear to me that this also comes out as a negative.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> A de facto truth? Look closer B, it is a belief/assumption..


Trust me, Beej... a few days with arbitrary control over you're pleasure and pain, and I can make you do what ever I want.

The point is, I don't have to prove to you that pleasure is good and pain is bad... you already believe it, weather you want to admit it or not.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Trust me, Beej... a few days with arbitrary control over you're pleasure and pain, and I can make you do what ever I want.


No need to get creepy here...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> The point is, I don't have to prove to you that pleasure is good and pain is bad... you already believe it, weather you want to admit it or not.


Not the point of your fake truism, B. 

Start with what I want is good (to me) and what I don't is bad (to me). I can fabricate broader value, but I don't want to use delusional assumptions (you seem to like them).

Falsifying the pain and pleasure morality is an assumption/belief to differentiate wants (wants vs pain and pleasure) and, because pain is not limited to personal experience, it believes others' states (as evaluated by the believer) into moral existence. That's your own personal sky daddy, whether you want to admit it or not. 

Again, the assumption-to-belief continuum is what is at play here. Not "religion" vs "secular". 

And your, "It is a de facto truth" is the hallmark of any successful religion. Your Truth is true, others are not. I encourage you to write it down on stone tablets for increased subjective validity. Your delusions can change the world!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The religious and ostensibly secular make Ought assumptions based on Is


show me


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> A rapist thinks his pleasure is more important than some else's pain.
> 
> And of course, such things can be quantified because pain and pleasure are judged on an objective scale.


Yes ethics are not in a vacuum and are neither good or bad of themselves. Honour among thieves. It's only against mores can it be evaluated.

The real issue derives down to whether there are ANY value either/or pairs that are absolute in one being ranked "better" than the other.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> In all of these cases we can easily determine that the pleasure/pain calculus of the unethical behaviour is negative. (all pleasure and all pain counts equally... and you have to consider long term effects as well as short term effects, but it's basically a cost-benefit analysis).
> 
> With respect to eating meat, it is less obvious, but with a modern perspective, it seems quite clear to me that this also comes out as a negative.
> 
> Cheers


MD: Do you see the religion yet? Not Godhead religion, but do you see my point?

"pleasure/pain calculus of the unethical behaviour is negative"

"but with a modern perspective, it seems quite clear to me that this also comes out as a negative"

B has assumed into existence a moral distinction with a basis of assumption/belief.

Again: Really think about what the assumption means, not the ostensible "truism" of it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I see your point but it's not about process it's about values/goals.

I do think Bryanc is making an unwarranted assumption about "reduced suffering" being a positive and pain being a negative in and of themselves.

Goals/values can be derived from several sources - effectiveness in reaching them relies on method ONCE A GOAL IS SET.

In sports the rules and goals are set externally of the players.
Ethical choices flow from that.
Some guys see bending the rules ( hockey goons ) as the best method of "winning"
Some see abiding by the rules ( Gordie Howe ) as the best method of "winning".
Stats can prove whose ethical approach works towards the goal of "winning".

If you are asking me if any goal or value is inherently better than another. I'll say no. The game parameters have to be defined.

If you ask me empirically is one method better than another of achieving a goal - say winning at poker. I'll say yes. Is it ALWAYS better ...no.....is it better in the long run given the goals of poker - yes.

How many of the religious do you think will answer No to


> Is any goal or value inherently better than another.


 

••

One note will Bryanc and I have some common approaches there are also a number of differences so don't tangle us entirely - one reason I've caveated it and said " I think Bryanc is getting at......" etc.

I do beleive Bryancs strong positivism derives from inadequate pay for admirable work  Prop up the decision tree a bit.

If this ia bti disjointed I'm doing chores interspersed - I had to make an ethical choice of clean house for guest versus cogent writing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> If you are asking me if any goal or value is inherently better than another. I'll say no. The game parameters have to be defined.
> ...................................
> If you ask me empirically is one method better than another of achieving a goal - say winning at poker. I'll say yes. Is it ALWAYS better ...no.....is it better in the long run given the goals of poker - yes.
> ...................................
> ...


Yep, and people like to assume/believe their own parameters. The important part is the parameters because that determines the fallout (logical consequences), not the sky daddy intermediary that may or may not exist. 

Religion in and of itself is not a problem, but certain assumptions (packaged in any given way) are.
...................................
Sure. Set a goal and there are methods to get there efficiently (personal metric..some people just enjoy playing, I enjoy winning beejacon) but not Good or Bad. Better and worse depends on what you personally value. 

Set a goal (no reason to attach moral value to it) and there are ways to get to it (no reason to attach moral values to the ways). There are preferred ways to get to that goal. Religion and secular assumption just artificially load on goods and bads. 
...................................
Acknowledged. You are more honest/less delusional about mores and preferences versus belief/assumption.
...................................
My ethical choice is, through laziness, to grow more virulent germs and thereby strengthen my immune system.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If you are are saying fallacies are common .....indeed.
A decent way to avoid them is to apply empirical results.

Some religions are also honest about the unknowability of their core assumption yet go about achieiving their goals with admirable method ( Quakers for one sect ).

Can you accept that religions depend on assumptions that eiether are unproven or cannot be proven ???


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Can you accept that religions depend on assumptions that eiether are unproven or cannot be proven ???


Yes, as do secular beliefs. We probably agree that religion requires some form of assumption but do we agree that a secular assumption is not inherently superior or more rational? Atheist-lite is not inherently more rational.

A**-beliefs are what they are, lightning bolts or not. The logical fallout is what worries me.

As for the flexibility bugaboo, it's quite the continuum. Literal religious interpretations versus "pragmatic" (do what I want, but have two categories of want) and, similarly for the "seculars" like B. Again, no inherent good or bad to either irrationality. It, from other people's point of view, depends on the starting assumptions. 

So it isn't religion being good or bad (from a "don't eff up my world" point of view) it is about starting assumptions and their implications.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Yes, as do secular beliefs.


I said assumptions...... you stick in belief........you're trying a stealth parallel.

Religions have no requirement for anything BUT assumption or belief.
They will in some circumstances make use of thesis/antithesis for best approach. They tend to be resistant to change - especially those that contradict handed down edicts and assumptions.

MY secular ethics require thesis/antithesis to the best of my ability as a basis for action/decision and embraces willingness to change. That's not to say mine or others of it's ilk avoid assuming. In conversation there often can be the appearance of "assumption" as it's a statement of goals previously worked out....ethical shorthand if you like.

Different games Beej.

••
also - assumptions in a secular system are expected to be challenged and if disproved or proved questionable discarded.
There is little or no similar mechanism or expectation in religious memes.
If anything the emphasis is on "belief without proof or questioning ".

Once more different games and also very much in religions 
handed down" goals and "game play" ....aka ritual.
Not that hockey players or gamblers don't indulge in the latter.

If secular thought and action has an Achilles heel it's in the realm of addressing "human passages" - birth death marriage etc in a humanly satisfying ritual.

I'm quite sure we collectively as a secular society have not entrenched "nature/ecology" is such a way as to fully celebrate our connection.
Wiccans seem to do okay that way.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I said assumptions...... you stick in belief........you're trying a stealth parallel.
> 
> Religions have no requirement for anything BUT assumption or belief.
> They will in some circumstances make use of thesis/antithesis for best approach. They tend to be resistant to change - especially those that contradict handed down edicts and assumptions.


"Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition."

Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The full link even mentions Dawkins and delusion. 

A working assumption becomes a belief when it becomes Truth to the person. No stealth parallel here, this point has been underlying the issue from the start.

It is a belief in an ethical evaluation (dividing up one's wants into Good and Bad, or enlightened and other). While as just an assumption, it's a fun model to think about with no real insight, but logic games are fun. Your "ethical shorthand" may or may not be more of an operating assumption. Depends on how you feel about it.

For religions and secular examples you get logical challenges but you generally have to adopt the basic starting a**-belief. B followed the standard pattern. It does not have to be that way though. Saw some United leader referring to God as simply "love"...sounds like serious diversity vs basic Christianity.

Religions held by many tend to be more resistant to change because they are large and institutionalised. Much of their power is that many more people share the same belief and that brings weight for social creatures that often use as logical proof, "See, he thinks so too!"  You seem to be observing tendencies, not fundamental differences. ie. Religion, particularly organised, tends to A. 

Personal "spirituality" religions are a better comparison as individual units. It then depends upon the rigidity and belief of the individual. The power of personal "De Facto Truth" over personal sense, so to speak. To each their own.

Again, though, keep in mind that we may still be talking of different things when using "religion". That spicy uncertainty is just waiting to cause misunderstanding.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Just occurred to to bat around: analogy to business (because I am Beej).

A small business with a single owner can (within financial means) fundamentally change itself in response to information quicker than an enormous corporation.

But you still get those sole proprietors that won't and corps. that will. You can also have owners with different views and practices, but they also invest together (same for small biz with more than one owner). Business can function better with aligned "beliefs" but both kinds of businesses also benefit from a variety. 

There are structural speed limits so you get tendencies, but no true systemic difference. More bricks, mortar and processes to change; a consensus of one versus many, but still prone to the same old belief, fears, curiosity, uncertainty and such. The corp. will structurally have greater variety. Still, it comes down to the owners being willing to change.


----------

