I wish I understood these people

Well, the people over at PETA are forever at it again. Seems they are celebratory of the fact that a possible 140 year old lobster has been let free of his torturous tank and released back into the ocean http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090110/ap_on_fe_st/odd_liberated_lobster . The people at PETA believe that "man" has some kind of moral duty to extend rights, one may call them "human" rights to every life form on planet earth http://www.peta.org/about/. Now I assume this is limited to just earth, though maybe they mean the entire universe. Lets not go there for now, for the first segment of the previous statement is enough to work. If I assume that there is no God or "higher being" in the universe, then please PETA, tell me why animal, let alone any other life form, is entitled to any right what-so-ever? Now, now, please do not resort to ad hominem, name-calling, tactic, just answer the question. What is the basis for your moral position? What other animal on the face of planet earth behaves in a moral fashion? Why does man, sometime that is, behave in a moral fashion? Wait, wait, wait, what on earth do we mean by "moral"? 5 lines up I said lets assume there is not a higher being. With no higher being, how do we have a higher moral law? Again, how do we define, "moral" now? I should not hurt you, why? If my ancestor is a primate, then it is reasonable to ask: Do primates have a moral law? If they do, it is unknown to us. Where do our moral positions come from today? Do they come from my emotions or my reason? Are either one something to build a universal position from? Now I am not just asking: Can animals be eaten? I am asking, why they would not be eaten for moral reasons. I can tell you why they can be eaten for tasty reasons. Warm, melted butter dripping over "George", is a good enough reason to eat him for me. OK, was that an emotional, or a logical answer why I should eat George?



I have seen secular humanists try to justify a moral law apart from a "moral law giver". Not one have I seen compels me to agree with them. Honestly, put the emotions aside for just a moment. If there is no higher being, what constrains my behavior other than the law that has been placed over me by the government? If I get the government on my side, then PETA has no right to tell me not to eat George. Ahhh, so this is just a battle to convince people to believe one side or another, there is no real absolute rule to govern our choices. But why do we chose the sides we are on? This seems to be the question we keep asking.

In a secular humanist world (shw), morality, or right and wrong, boil down to mere preference. If our existence is due to a long line of accidental changes on an accidental world in an accidental universal, then what gives morality any weight other than the might to enforce a particular moral position? In a shw, morality is not weighted by right and wrong, it is weighted by preference. Peta prefers that I not boil, crack, dip, and eat George. I prefer that George adds to the nutritional diversity of my diet. No right or wrong, just preference. As we wake up to this notion in our "secular" society, expect to see (as we already are) very large changes in what our society "prefers". Celebrating the release of a flavorful crustacean back to the ocean is merely silly, other changes that we are seeing are stupefying and scary.



I feel sorry for George in some ways. If he is really 140 years old, how will he take care of himself back in the ocean? Surely he is entitled to medicare and social security. Why not? Why should we limit rights to animals? If he waits around long enough, maybe he will get some sort of bail out.