Animal Cruelty - Why should we care?

[bit_pattern]

Much harder than one might think. Here are to articles I like on the subject that cover all the bases:

http://www.theveganwoman.com/is-it-ethical-to-eat-eggs-from-home-grown-chickens/
http://gentleworld.org/whats-wrong-with-backyard-eggs/

Less convincing than your milk arguments but interesting nonetheless.

 

[bit_pattern]

I just ate a delicious meal of vegan red beans and rice with greens and non-vegan slaw - the mayonnaise was made with whole eggs so I'm sticking to the belief that eggs can be ethical so as not to spoil the whole experience

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Less convincing than your milk arguments but interesting nonetheless.

Actually most of what Tsukasa posted there was true, if you can get past the obvious slant. The egg industry is routinely mismarketing it's eggs to fill a demand for ethically raised eggs. Truth is very few are what they claim to be, due to loopholes in the regulations. The regs here in USA are designed to prevent ethically raised eggs from entering the marketplace. Those regs are much harder to avoid for a producer. A backyard grower can do it, but not easy for a farmer to do it right. In fact, over the last several years they have been trying to prevent it entirely.

I just ate a delicious meal of vegan red beans and rice with greens and non-vegan slaw - the mayonnaise was made with whole eggs so I'm sticking to the belief that eggs can be ethical so as not to spoil the whole experience

Eggs can be raised ethically, they just typically are not. see above ^ No idea where you got your mayo, but the odds are extremely high those eggs were not.

 

[Belz...]

What need are you referring to?

Eating, testing medecine, etc.

 

[Belz...]

If you're going to claim ethical subjectivism, then it makes no difference if someone wants to avoid causing "undue" suffering (or needless suffering).

Why not ?

Which is a silly comment. I suppose society imposes on someone when it makes human trafficking illegal (in that imposes itself upon the trafficker).

So it's not silly, then ?

In any event, you're using my non-controversial observation to score some point about how you're a victim if you're prevented from racking up a body count.

"Racking up a body count". Talk about emotionally-charged rhetoric. Do you have actual rational arguments ?

 

[Belz...]

OK, so when I say "animals" when I meant "mammals" you jump on me, but when you do it I suppose it is fine??

Some animals. It's a spectrum, which is the point I was trying to make to you.

(Unless you seriously are claiming that insects have feelings... )

Some of them certainly do seem have sensations, anyway.

All this debate is, is an appeal to emotion, anyway. Either you feel that animals of a certain category deserve good treatment of we don't. Some people refuse to kill spiders, others don't have a problem with it, etc. Someone wants to be a vegetarian or vegan, go for it. Just don't expect me to share your precise values when it comes to what we do with other species.

 

[bit_pattern]

Just don't expect me to share your precise values when it comes to what we do with other species.

Why is it more rational to hold precise values when it comes to our species? Serious question. I've never really understood who rationality applies to morals and am interested in your POV.

There was a time not all that long ago when it was perfectly OK to kill people of different races and I could envisage someone making a similar argument about shooting Aboriginal people in Australia. I'm interested by the notion that intraspecies morals are absolute but interspecies morals are not.

 

[Meed]

I will do so with pleasure: because principles are not universal. I don't want to cause undue suffering to animals, just like I don't want to cut down trees needlessly. Where there's a need, however...

What need are you referring to?

Eating, testing medecine, etc.

(bolding added)

Eating animals and animal products is not a "need" for those of us in the developed world. People do it because it tastes good or because they were raised that way and simply don't question it and/or because they mistakenly believe it's necessary for health.

For those who rely on hunting, trapping or herding for survival, I would agree that, for them, meat should be called a "need". And for those who don't have access to B12, eating at least a small amount of animal products is a need. However, for much of the world's poor, meat is barely affordable or not affordable, because it's inefficient compared to plant based foods.

An affable businessman in a pink-striped polo shirt, pork-industry consultant Shen Guang*rong remembers his father raising one pig each year, which was slaughtered at the Chinese New Year. It would be their only meat for the year.

[...]
It's no coincidence that as countries like China and India prosper and their people move up the food ladder, demand for grain has increased. For as tasty as that sweet-and-sour pork may be, eating meat is an incredibly inefficient way to feed oneself. It takes up to five times more grain to get the equivalent amount of calories from eating pork as from simply eating grain itself—ten times if we're talking about grain-fattened U.S. beef. As more grain has been diverted to livestock and to the production of biofuels for cars, annual worldwide consumption of grain has risen from 815 million metric tons in 1960 to 2.16 billion in 2008.

All this debate is, is an appeal to emotion, anyway.

So? The same could be said about any of the gun threads or police brutality threads, or threads on countless other topics. Emotion (empathy in particular) is an important factor in moral decision making. There is nothing wrong with appealing to it.

Either you feel that animals of a certain category deserve good treatment of we don't.

Obviously. For every normative topic (e.g. gun control, the quickness of police to shoot potential threats, universal health care, etc.), we either feel one way or we don't. Are you suggesting this means that such discussions are pointless? In the civil rights and women's movements, people either felt that women and minorities deserved rights or they didn't. There were plenty of "appeals to emotion". And yet, activists and advocates did their thing, debates and discussions raged on, and peoples views and values changed. Your complaints about emotion and "either you feel a certain way or you don't" don't make sense.

 

[Belz...]

Why is it more rational to hold precise values when it comes to our species? Serious question.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase it ?

I've never really understood who rationality applies to morals and am interested in your POV.

Rationality applies to morals, in my opinion, only in determining courses of actions based on those morals. Morals are an expression of one's subjective values, themselves based on emotional wants.

I'm interested by the notion that intraspecies morals are absolute but interspecies morals are not.

This is not a claim that I have made. It's simply a matter of course that we would value our species more than others.

Now, if you want my personal opinion, I value people more than other forms of life. So if we ever meet alien civilizations, I would treat them like I treat humans.

However, it's a fact that, future technology aside, we need to kill to eat and survive. If we can minimise or eliminate stress and pain in animals during that process, then the only remaining moral objection would be the killing itself, but then no one seems to mind killing plants.

 

[Belz...]

Eating animals and animal products is not a "need" for those of us in the developed world.

Of course it is, just like buying video games is a need. It's not required for our survival, but then no one is suggesting that we limit ourselves to that. Speaking of causing harm, a lot of people are paid unacceptable wages in developing countries so that we can buy 5$ shirts, another thing we don't strictly need.

People do it because it tastes good or because they were raised that way and simply don't question it and/or because they mistakenly believe it's necessary for health.

I'm not fond of the "people don't question it" argument, as it assumes that those who disagree are just uninformed. It's a way to hand-wave the opposition away. "Because they want to" is good enough reason unless you can find a reason not to; just like rights, I don't need to justify why I do it, so long as I don't harm another person.

So?

Just pointing out that none of us here are being really rational; nor should we. Let's not pretend, however.

Are you suggesting this means that such discussions are pointless?

No. I'm saying that assuming I'm wrong simply because I disagree is not helpful in such a discussion.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Eating animals and animal products is not a "need" for those of us in the developed world. People do it because it tastes good or because they were raised that way and simply don't question it and/or because they mistakenly believe it's necessary for health.

Well it is necessary for good public health. (individuals may vary) Also necessary for good ecosystem health. Also necessary if you want to develop an agricultural system that is sustainable. What isn't necessary is mistreating the animals.

 

[RandFan]

Well it is necessary for good public health. (individuals may vary) Also necessary for good ecosystem health. Also necessary if you want to develop an agricultural system that is sustainable. What isn't necessary is mistreating the animals.

I don't know how necessary it is. Clearly it is necessary for some. IIRC, Laura Dern was told by her doctor to eat some animal protein to compensate for a deficiency.

In any event, I'm quite sure that the consumption of animal products will decrease over time and we clearly won't need to eat meat. We can replicate the nutrition found in meat using non-meat products. It's just that right now animals produces some enzymes and other nutrition more efficiently than we can in the lab.

We could in fact reduce our consumption considerably with more healthy outcomes more likely than less healthy ones.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

We could in fact reduce our consumption considerably with more healthy outcomes more likely than less healthy ones.

That is true, but the primary reason for that is due to the way it is raised. Production method has a direct effect on the nutritional content of animal products. Those nutritional differences found in CAFO animal products have been found to have a direct negative effect on public health.[1][2]

So in my opinion it is not that animal products are bad for public health any more than a cow is somehow inherently harmful to the environment. Both negative outcomes are directly related to our inhumane factory farming system. see post #135

 

[Cain]

Re: Ethical subjectivism and avoiding undue harm...

Why not ?

Because it makes little sense to attempt to justify something when you're taking a position that nothing is morally justifiable.

So it's not silly, then ?

No, it's still silly for reasons discussed earlier. Where did you learn to argue -- this forum?

"Racking up a body count". Talk about emotionally-charged rhetoric. Do you have actual rational arguments ?

Here you are again deliberately attempting to avoid the point (and in the most artless way possible): you're accusing others of imposing upon you simply because you choose to impose upon animals. Now maybe you have a super-secret, hyper-rational reason to finance animal killing, although in all the years you've chosen to bog down these threads I can't say I've ever seen it.

 

[ThunderChunky]

(bolding added)

Eating animals and animal products is not a "need" for those of us in the developed world. People do it because it tastes good or because they were raised that way and simply don't question it and/or because they mistakenly believe it's necessary for health.

Animal based scientific research isn't a "need" either and the animals are treated much more poorly than those on ethical farms.

We could in fact reduce our consumption considerably with more healthy outcomes more likely than less healthy ones.

We could produce better health outcomes by reducing vegetable oil and nutritionally sparse carb sources. Grains are worse for health than meat. It's really only processed meat that is associated with poor health outcomes. [1]

 

[fuelair]

And a propensity for cruelty to small animals and pets is one of the red flags for serial killers. They have no empathy for the animals, and this grows into the same attitude toward other humans. I've known one such person personally.

Is it still alive?

 

[RandFan]

That is true, but the primary reason for that is due to the way it is raised. Production method has a direct effect on the nutritional content of animal products. Those nutritional differences found in CAFO animal products have been found to have a direct negative effect on public health.[1][2]

So in my opinion it is not that animal products are bad for public health any more than a cow is somehow inherently harmful to the environment. Both negative outcomes are directly related to our inhumane factory farming system. see post #135

Okay, hmmm......

Agreed, they are not automatically mutually exclusive. Please don't confuse an ethical Vegan from an unethical Vegan. I was specifically arguing against an unethical Vegan who has repeatedly argued for the removal of all farm animals from the farm on the grounds that it is the cow itself that is to blame for its deleterious effect on the environment, the battery cage hen that is to blame for the diseases she spreads, that livestock doesn't even have the right to breathe or fart or defecate because everything they do is harmful to the environment, that the victim is to blame for the abuse it receives. It's now the cows fault? Or is it the fault of the human who put that cow in a CAFO? Raise it properly and a cow can be very beneficial to the environment[1][2], same as all livestock. Stack that same animal along with 100,000 more in a confined area, feeding them unnatural feeds they didn't evolve to eat, and forcing them to live in their own waste, and a whole host of health[3][4] and environmental issues[5] arise. But beyond that, it is animal cruelty! Isn't that exactly the topic of this thread?

We should care because our cruelty to animals as a society comes right back and bites us in the butt on so many social, health and environmental levels! But there is no blaming the cow. It's our fault.

Actually I have a great fondness for 99.9 % of all vegetarians and vegans. I am a vegetable farmer after all. But the unethical vegan with those views I will rant against for sure.

Ummm, well, sounds informed and reasonable. I'll go with that.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I think we have this a bit backwards.

I suspect the answer to the OP's question is "mirror neurons".
Human brains have the ability to imagine how it feels to be someone else, or something else, but our ability is limited. We find it easier to imagine what a chimpanzee is feeling in a given situation than we do to imagine what a goose is feeling. We empathise with dogs more than cats, cats more than mice, mice more than snakes. Empathising with a spider takes effort. (I do try).

I once had to kill a kitten that had been severely savaged by a dog. I did it as fast and humanely as I could in the circumstances, but it upset me then and it upsets me still, when I think about it.
Maybe a month later, I executed a pig. That was fast too- probably as fast as a modern abattoir could do and the pig was under no stress whatever when he died.He was stuffing his face, in fact. I remember the execution with no discomfort at all, just satisfaction at a job well done- and the subsequent ham I recall with great pleasure.
One was a mercy killing of a terrified and injured animal, one was dinner. There's a difference. I've popped a few turkey necks before Christmas, too. It's hard to get close to a turkey.

Murder is not easy for most people, yet soldiers may kill with far less stress than they would have felt murdering someone as a civilian, because it's OK for soldiers to kill some people.
The herd approves. I think that has something in common with the sort of mental conditioning that let me see executing a pig as a task, rather than a crime. Torturing a pig would be a crime.

Some civilians of course can and do murder with no apparent stress or difficulty. These often demonstrate the same callousness towards animals. I doubt this is a "progression", except in the sense that as adults they have the ability to kill people , while in childhood they have access to animals.

I really think that's all this comes down to; our ability to identify with some animals.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

You might start with getting rid of government corruption in the USDA that purposely subsidises CAFOs so they can operate at below cost, and purposely prevents ethical farmers from competing on a level playing field with regulations.

There are hundreds of subtle underhanded ways they do this, but here is a good example:

FSIS DIRECTIVE 6100.4

Now this is subtle, so if you don't understand I'll be happy to explain.

What can the average consumer do though? What can I do as a voter? Sure, I could change my own shopping and diet habits, but that won't fix the corruption in the system.

Great question. I was raised on a small farm. In my community there was a culture of a kind of reverence for animals. There was a strict taboo against allowing animals to suffer or to intentionally cause unnecessary suffering (granting that slaughtering was considered necessary).

It's a tough nut to crack. I don't know. One thing that isn't going to happen but I wish would. At some point in their lives people should see a cow slaughtered. I grew up across from a dairy and I worked there. I've seen a Captive bolt pistol placed against the head of a cow and the trigger released. It's a hell of a thing. I've slaughtered and cleaned many hundreds of chickens and rabbits. I wish people could make more informed choices about their food. Most are too removed from the actual process.

Like those who fought to end slavery and segregation we need to be patient and keep raising awareness. Enlarging the circle of empathy. It might be awhile before we see real substantive changes. I suspect that environmental and health concerns will cause change before concerns of animal welfare does.

I would also recommend against self-righteousness. It's perfectly fine to argue the ethics of not consuming animals but taking a holier than thou attitude is not helpful in my opinion.

While tradition and evolved adaptation for the ability to eat meat are not logically valid arguments to justify eating for taste, they are powerful drivers of culture. It is very likely that meat gave us the nutrition necessary to grow big brains and to survive in a wide variety climes from the Sub Sahara to the Arctic. It's deeply engrained in our culture and perhaps even in our DNA. Though, again, those facts do not themselves justify eating meat.

I guess my stance is that those who can afford to change their diets should be open to do so, but they shouldn't impose their lifestyle on people who can't do the same. I know a couple of people who can't, based on dietary needs (as in, they were told by their dietician). In the meantime, I agree that people should be made more aware of where their food comes from, though this goes for both meat and produce. When it comes to fruits and vegetables, a lot of industrial scale farms in the US employ migrant workers who endure long hours and have no rights. Some of them are even underage because there are no laws preventing that practice. I mean, I don't want to see humans mistreated either.

As for meat alternatives, I'm for the development of cultured meat tissue on a large scale, so that it's affordable to the average consumer. Right now, unfortunately, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars just to grow a single petri dish.

 

[angrysoba]

I suspect the answer to the OP's question is "mirror neurons".

...


I really think that's all this comes down to; our ability to identify with some animals.

No, I think that is answering a separate question. Assuming "mirror neurons" exist, that might answer the question "Why DO we care?" not "Why SHOULD we care?"