"Claiming to be at the top of the food chain has become a popular justification for eating animal products and an affirmation of our ability to violently dominate everything and everyone. Yet justifications for needless violence that draw on notions of power and supremacy are based on the philosophy of “Might makes right” — the principle behind the worst atrocities and crimes of human history."

"We humans are not at the top of anything. We are merely part of an interdependent web of life that forms complex yet fragile ecosystems. We choose to either participate in the protection of these natural systems, or to destroy them at our own peril. The concept of a food chain is a human construct that imposes a rigid and competitive hierarchy among species, rather than a good faith understanding of the complexity of the ecosystems to which we belong. Selectively appealing to biological determinism also ignores the fact that we are moral agents. By choosing plant foods, we can get our nutrients through primary sources of nourishment, in the most environmentally friendly and resource-efficient way possible, minimizing our harm to other animals, humans and the planet."

http://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/breaking-food-chain-myth/

“Saying eating animals is “yummy” as a justification for killing them is pretty much the same argument as saying rape is okay since it feels good to the rapist. Civilized people require more than sensory pleasure to justify behaviors.”

it is not "my" way or "our" way that is at issue but rather the fundamental questions of morals, ethics, violence and non-violence. when one has a choice in the matter, is not doing less harm always better than doing more harm? just as i do not consider myself superior for choosing not to harm or kill other humans or puppies and kittens, but instead look at it as the minimum standard of decency of not treating others the way i would not wish to be treated.

anyone who supports the killing of non-human animals is only looking at things from the human perspective-i.e. that of the oppressor. just as in the case of any form of violence and exploitation, the foundation of all of the false justifications against veganism are based on ignoring any consideration of the victims point of view. this is all too easy when one is not a victim of oppression themselves.

it is truly a very sad thing when mercy, compassion and empathy are considered as extreme while supporting torture, cruelty and death in the name of pleasure and profit is considered as normal and a matter of personal choice.

“For hundreds of thousands of years the stew in the pot has brewed hatred and resentment that is difficult to stop. If you wish to know why there are disasters of armies and weapons in the world, listen to the piteous cries from the slaughter house at midnight.”- Ancient Chinese verse

i am vegan BECAUSE i do not consider myself superior to others,regardless of their species. when looked at logically and without the inherent blinders of our culture, the one's who truly consider themselves superior are the one's who believe that feeling beings have to suffer and die for their taste preferences. your statements completely disregard the viewpoint of the victims who have no choice in their own suffering and death. since it is indisputable that the cows, pigs, chickens and fishes whom people consume feel pain and want to live, there is no moral justification for exploiting and killing them in the name of a momentary taste sensation.

the only consistent ethical position is to reject all forms of violence and exploitation rather than limiting one's concern for a select few species. if you would not wish to experience something yourself, it is never humane or justifiable to force another to experience it. veganism is not about perfection but is about doing the least harm possible. the truth is that when any animal product is consumed, sentient non-human animals suffer and die as a result of it. it is only by being disconnected from the reality of it that one continues to support such heinous violence.

Had a math teacher who thought it was funny to mix in two of these millennium prize problems into a test. It brought some students to tears as they thought they were going to fail. A few of us recognized what they were, but most were still pulling out their hair at the end of the period. The teacher's justification was, it would teach us how to identify problems that could not be solved. Unfortunately more than one student was still trying to solve the first MPP and left the remaining 80% of the test blank.

I respect peoples rights to do whatever the hell they want as long as it harms no one else. But to me, she seems intent on rubbing peoples faces in her modifications/tats rather than as a form of self expression.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but as per your point, she skips the entire cultural reason why tats are frowned upon in general, and there doesn't seem to be any investigation as to why the law says doctors are okay to perform tats but artists are not (guessing it's a thin justification along the lines of a health issue to make it essentially completely illegal).

I am mostly conservative, but even in a school with corporal punishment they do not allow direct hand slapping of students. If the teacher felt the student deserved corporal punishment, she should have followed the proper procedure.

In other words, there is absolutely no justification for her to directly lay hands on that kid.

carnivores, unlike humans (who eat flesh, dairy and eggs for reasons of pleasure) require flesh to live. if you check out the article i posted along wit h this one, they will greatly increase your awareness about these issues:

freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/animals-eat-animals/

freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/animals-eat-animals/

"Automatically ok"? Not necessarily. But in cases where it makes sense, at a stretch even "plot sense" for the character to be there; yeah, I think that is OK.

The Last Samurai isn't a documentary. But, the general historical justification for Tom Cruise's character being in Japan is pretty much valid. Meiji was interested in the West -- clothes, technology, weapons, and military. He actually did hire Westerners to train his army, although from what I read it sounds like they were German, French, and Italian rather than American. Still, the movie portrays the general situation/setting with at least *decent* broad-strokes historical accuracy. LOADS of movies deviate from even this degree of historical accuracy *way* more without drawing complaints; particularly if their main purpose is entertainment and not education / documentary.


Your hypothetical reverse movie makes some valid criticisms. Even though it would have been historically possible for a Westerner to be in Japan at the time -- even to be involved with training a Western-style military -- it would be unlikely for such a person to get captured, run into a Shogun that speaks English, become a badass (or at least passable) samurai warrior, and end up playing a major role in politics and significantly influencing Emperor Meiji.

My defense against those criticisms is that, for me at least, the movie is entertaining; which is kinda the point. Your "Union Samurai" movie might be equally entertaining and therefore given an equal pass on historical inaccuracies by me.

The whole characters as a "lens through which the audience can appreciate a culture/history outside their own" issue is (slightly) more weighty to me. I don't think those are often necessary, but I don't feel like my intelligence is being insulted if the movie maker feels that they are in order to sell tickets.

I love the Chinese historical novel "Three Kingdoms". A few years ago, John Wu made the movie "Red Cliff", mostly about one particular battle in the historical period portrayed in that book. For the Chinese audience, Wu made the movie in two parts, summed up about four and a half hours long. For the US / West, he made a version trimmed to just over two hours. Why? Because he (and a team of market researchers, I'm sure) knew that very few Westerners would go to see a 4+ hour long movie, entirely in Mandarin Chinese (with subtitles), about a piece of Chinese history from ~1800 years ago that very few in the West have ever heard of or know anything about.

I think the full 4+ hour long movie is great. In my personal top 10 favorite movies of all time, ahead of most Hollywood stuff. But I also understand that there's no way that movie would appeal to all but a tiny, tiny fraction of Western viewers in that full-on 4+ hour format. But, even though I personally think the cut-down 2 hour "US" version is drastically inferior to the full cut, I am glad that he made it because it gives a suitably accurate introduction to the subject matter to more people in the West (just like the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "Dynasty Warriors" videogames do), and makes that tiny, tiny fraction of Western people that know anything about it a little less tiny. While being entertaining along the way.

For other movies, sometimes the best way that a filmmaker can sell a movie to an audience that otherwise might not accept it (at least in large enough numbers to justify the production costs) may be to insert one of these "lens" characters for the audience to identify with. I don't think there is inherently anything wrong with that. It might not work for movies that are taking a more hardline approach to historical / contextual accuracy (ie., if Tom Cruise showed up in "Red Cliff" in circa 200AD China), but outside of those situations, if that is what the studio thinks it will take to sell tickets... Cool.

The Last Samurai is, like @ChaosEngine said, a movie primarily about an outsider learning a new culture (and accepting his own past). He serves as that lens character, but actually the hows and whys of his character arc are the main points of interest in the movie, at least to me.

I'm sure that an awesome, historically accurate movie could be made dealing with young Emperor Meiji, Takamori (who Katsumoto seems to be based on in The Last Samurai), and the influence of modernization on Japanese culture at the time. It could be made with no Western "lens" character, no overt influence by any particular individual Westerner, and be entirely in Japanese. But that movie wouldn't be The Last Samurai, wouldn't be attempting to serve the same purpose as The Last Samurai, and very likely wouldn't sell as many tickets (in the US) as The Last Samurai (starring Tom Cruise!) did. That wouldn't make it a worse movie, just an apple instead of an orange.

Obviously there would still be trials and investigations. Circumstances like self-defense and accidents would still be considered and evidence would still be a necessity. But instead of a slap on the wrist or pointless prison sentences (keeping people in prison is a colossal waste of money), the sentence for convicted criminals would always be death. This would be a pretty effective deterrent for people posting death threats on Facebook or Twitter.

This isn't an all or nothing situation. Adopting death sentences doesn't mean that we have to abolish the entire judicial system and become a fascist state that persecutes people without reasonable justification. Truth is, fear of death is a pretty compelling reason not to break the law and people who pose a physical threat to others should be punished accordingly.

As for custodians, I'm sorry if I offended you but it doesn't change the fact that the occupation is seen as undesirable by the vast majority of people. Nobody says "I want to be a janitor when I grow up!" It may pay relatively well and have flexible hours but the work itself is tedious and unpleasant. Granted, there are a lot of jobs that are tedious and unpleasant but when given the choice between being a janitor or an office worker, 99.99% of the population would choose the office job. Janitors are a necessity but nobody would ever want to be one if other options with equivalent pay were available.

@Barbar
i do not know if you are aware,but you actually made my point in regards to justification.specifically your third paragraph.

as for the disagreement in regards to religious texts being inert and neutral.this should not really be an issue and should be plain for all to see.religious texts are amalgamations,musings,stories,philosophies all jammed into a canonized text.they are often hypocritical and contradictory.it is the reader that interprets and injects their own subjective understandings based on their own proclivities.

which then makes religious text a subjective text.so if you are violent,then your interpretations will be violence,which would lead to justifications based on those interpretations.

unless you are using fundamentalism as a fulcrum.which sees religious text as the unerring word of god,which brings a whole new conundrum into focus:contradictory philosophies which are in diametric opposition.which is an impossibility to reconcile,but again brings us to my main point:justification.(by way of mental gymnastics).

and harris does not just smell like apologist BS,he IS an apologist.now this is understandable when seen through the lens of nationalism,but it engages in the same wishful thinking harris accuses many religious people of engaging in.

we WANT to feel we are the good guys.
we WANT to think that what we are doing is for a higher,and more morale purpose.
we WANT to think all this violence and bloodshed is ultimately for a better and more prosperous future for everybody involved.
we WANT to believe that our government is not just destroying and destabilizing whole communities with wanton destruction just so our corporations can have a new market to exploit,or to control the oil fields for BP and chevron to control.

but thats not the reality.
our wants are just wishful thinking and an inability to accept that we cling to these wants to justify horror,destruction and death.

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/05/the-radically-changing-story-of-the-u-s-airstrike-on-afghan-hospital-from-mistake-to-justification/

so what is OUR justification?
so just like the more moderate and secular muslims who look the other way when faced with horror.we too,look away at the truth of things,because to recognize the reality means to accept responsibility.
we have blood on our hands....all of us.
as do those muslims who also look away.

but the allure of justifications....
to have the ability to turn horror into righteousness.
it is extremely powerful,and we ALL participate.
even sam harris.

Nice to see a lack of verbal abuse in a discussion like this. I appreciate it as I know I'm probably treading on thin ice in a lot of minds.

I disagree that texts are devoid of meaning until we give them some. The text itself if a collection of ideas and some of those ideas are horrendous. It generally is not an individual's qualities that determine the violence of the religion as much as the history of that religion's practice in the area they were raised. A peaceful and loving Aztec that was faithful would still have supported sacrificing slaves for all the same reasons, because they would have believed the underlying superstitions that made it a rational act given the premises.

I'm not sure Maher & co. view is as a strictly religious phenomenon. You really have to do a case by case analysis. Some make no sense but for religion, while other are very easy for my to sympathize with, even as an atheist. I have to admit I'm more familiar with Harris' views than Maher's, mind you, as I find Maher's presentation of his ideas can at times be half baked.

The reason why they specifically strap bombs to their chests is largely religious. Everyone else prefers living to kill another day. There's a religious reason why they are willing to sacrifice their children in this way. The reason that they behead people instead of other forms of killing them is because that form of murder is enshrined in their texts. All of these religious justifications lower the barrier for action. They make it that much easier for someone to accept that it's a reasonable course of action. And that's because of specific words in specific books.

I agree that is smells like apologist BS when Harris talks about western intervention having good intentions. I don't think the west has good intentions most of the time. However you have to acknowledge that there is something less reprehensible about trying to kill even a likely dangerous person (with the likelihood of innocent collateral damage) as compared with deliberately targeting exclusively innocent people. Yes the wedding party massacre was horrible. That was the worst case possible from our point of view, and some efforts will be made to avoid it happening again. If think that is morally significant. If you don't think intentions are relevant to morality, we will simply disagree.

what a fantastic discussion.
i would just like to add a few points:
1.religious texts are inert.they are neutral.
WE give them meaning.
so if you are a violent person,your religion will be violent.
if you are a peaceful and loving person,your religion will be peaceful and loving.
2.religion,along with nationalism,are the two greatest devices used by the state/tyrant/despot/king to instigate a populace to war/violence.
3.as @Barbar noted.islam is in serious need of reformation,much like the christian church experienced centuries ago.see:the end of the dark ages.
4.one of my problems with maher,harris and to a lesser extent dawkins,is that they view this strictly as a religious problem and ignore the cultural and social implications of the wests interventionism in the middle east.this is a dynamic and complicated situation,which goes back decades and to simply say that this is a problem with islam is just intellectually lazy.

there is a reason why these communities strap bombs to their chest.there is a reason why they behead people on youtube.there is a reason why salafism and wahabism are becoming more entrenched and communities are becoming more radicalized.

islam is NOT the reason.
islam is the justification.

the reason why liberals lose absofuckingalways,is because they not only feel they are,as @gorillaman pointed out,"good" but that they are somehow "better" than the rest of us.

sam harris is a supreme offender in this regard.that somehow the secular west has "better" or "good" intentions when we interfere with the middle east.that when a US drone strike wipes out a wedding party of 80 people is somehow less barbaric than the beheading of charlie hedbo.

yet BOTH are barbaric.

and BOTH utilize a device that justifies their actions.
one uses national security and/or some altruistic feelgood propaganda and the other uses islam.

yet only one is being occupied,oppressed,bombed and murdered.

this is basic.
there really is no controversy.
this is in our own history.
what is the only response when faced with an overwhelming and deadly military force,when your force is substantially weaker?
guerrilla warfare.

so the tactic of suicide bomber becomes more understandable when put in this context.
it is an act of desperation in the face of overwhelming military might to instill fear and terror upon those who wish to dominate and oppress.

and islam is the device used to justify these acts of terror.
just as nationalism and patriotism are used to justify OUR acts of terror.

thats my 2c anyways.
carry on peoples.

I would say that example is a false dichotomy. You're never going to find a case in Palestine or elsewhere in the world that someone blows themselves up purely for the religious reasons. There are clearly political and social motivations at play in every terrorist attack.

This relates directly to my main point though. Some some pundits want to use a suicide bombing in the West Bank as proof that Islam is "evil" or "dangerous" without addressing the elephant in the room--that the Palestinians are living in the world's "largest open-air prison" (to use Chomsky's words) and are resisting what they see as occupation of their lands in any way they can. It is no where near as simplistic as the "Muslims good/infidels bad cuz Koran says so" argument that some people seem to want to make.

And let's be clear, I'm not saying there aren't passages in the Koran that are being interpreted by Hamas and others as justification for the use of terrorism as an acceptable form of resistance. I'm saying this isn't unique to Islam. During the height of fighting in Northern Ireland both sides were using the Bible to justify the car bombs, assassinations, and other violence that occurred during The Troubles (another complex conflict where religious, political, and social issues intertwined). Yet I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who would claim that Christianity is "evil" or "dangerous" based on what went down in Northern Ireland. It is a great example, though, of how any organized religion can be mobilized to support evil acts.