Animal Cruelty - Why should we care?

[Belz...]

Well, that's an empirical claim. Maybe it can be put to the test. Perhaps children can be better persuaded than miserly old curmudgeons.

Yes, that seems to be the case.

"Recognizing [normative moral relativism] as a fact"?

Not the normative kind, no. The observation that morals are relative, only.

Feelings are now fickle? What happened to the impossibility of changing people's values?

Careful, Soba. I said it was very difficult (dared I say impossible) to change one person's values. But people's values evolve over time, because miserly old curmudgeons are replaced.

By all means, try and explain to me again.

I didn't say that asking people to care is the root of people's problems. I said that wanting others to be like us is. It's also entirely normal and understandable, so make of it what you will.

I think that when someone says, "We should do X!" then it is fair for someone to ask, "Why should we do X?"

Yes, that seems reasonable.

I suppose that people often (mis-)use* the term "beg the question" to mean it raises the question, but it rubs me up the wrong way as it is different from the academic use of the word.

I thank you for correcting my misconception, then.

I agree that it is easier to empathize with some people or things than it is for others, but this is why I would argue that empathy is not the sole criterion for a rational moral argument.

No, of course values are complex and we are not generally aware of the factors involved in our own values. But empathy for others certainly is an important factor.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Getting back to one of the main reasons I started this topic, I still want to know if there's an objective explanation as to why torturing a cat to death with bricks and stones is morally wrong. I'm asking because I'm not quite sure how to respond to people, and there are such people, who have said, "Quattro is just a stupid cat, and there are more important priorities to worry about."

As I have said, I work with abused animals all the time, and I care because of who I am. But I don't know exactly why I do care.

 

[angrysoba]

Getting back to one of the main reasons I started this topic, I still want to know if there's an objective explanation as to why torturing a cat to death with bricks and stones is morally wrong. I'm asking because I'm not quite sure how to respond to people, and there are such people, who have said, "Quattro is just a stupid cat, and there are more important priorities to worry about."

As I have said, I work with abused animals all the time, and I care because of who I am. But I don't know exactly why I do care.

Is there an objective moral reason (as opposed to the practical problem of having to go to jail) for not sticking babies on spikes?

I would say no; but if you agree that doing so is wrong, I expect that the reasons are not that different for why torturing cats are wrong. Because they can feel pain and terror just as the perpetrator or the bystander can.

 

[Meed]

It's not a claim. It's the definition of the word. There are various types of need. If you are talking about what we need to stay alive, then you could make an argument that we should give up everything we don't strictly need. Otherwise we all decide what we "need". Look the word up.

No, that is not equivalent to what I said at all.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about at this point.

Can you clarify what you meant by:

"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..."

And what definition of "need" you are using. The statement above strikes as pretty meaningless if you're using a definition of "need" so broad that it applies to people "needing" to buy video games. Maybe I misunderstood you.

That wasn't the point at all: the point is that most people tolerate this situation because the results (5$ shirts) suit them. People won't give up their meat; they'll instead lobby for better animal treatment. Vegans will have to compromise unless they somehow become a more powerful voice.

Okay. Well we're in agreement that most people won't give up their meat (at least anytime in the near future). However, most people won't lobby for better animal treatment either. Most animal treatment is abysmal and yet most people still consume the products. I'm all for better treatment, but that would result in higher prices, just like better treatment for human workers might result in more expensive shirts.

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.

You missed the "and/or".

No, I did not.

Then I don't understand your response. Saying "People do A because X or Y and/or Z" is not "assuming that those who do A do so because of Z".

First of all, that's not what I said. Why are you misrepresenting me ?

What are you saying then? I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you. Maybe you can clarify.

Second, why do you say in one sentence that I don't have to justify it, and in the other that I do ?

I didn't say that. I said "Of course you don't have to justify it, because it's legal and because the animals can't fight back. But if you choose to participate in a discussion, you should be prepared to justify your position with better arguments than simply saying you can do whatever you want." There is a difference between "have to" and "should".

 

[RandFan]

... the point is that most people tolerate this situation because the results (5$ shirts) suit them. People won't give up their meat; they'll instead lobby for better animal treatment. Vegans will have to compromise unless they somehow become a more powerful voice.

I'm by no means an animal rights activist. I've no problem at all eating animals. I'm quite sure I could dispatch, skin and clean a rabbit or chicken blindfolded.

That said, people once tolerated the situation of slavery because of the results. Morality is in part the art of persuasion. It was once said by slave traders, "if I don't do it someone else will". IMO: Moral agents should in the least consider that we could Expand The Circle of empathy as humans have been doing for thousands of years.

If you are ever in the the Lake LA area stop by and I'll grill you a steak, we will have a beer and discuss it.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ That's kind of what I was getting at earlier in the thread. It was legal for Romans to kill their wives for drinking alcohol. In my country Aboriginals were not considered people and it was legal to shoot them on sight in some states right up until the early 20th century. There's no reason to think that today's moral standards are absolute. I tend to think future generations will look back at our industrial slaughter of animals with similar horror that we do the Holocaust.

 

[Kahalachan]

Most people want to justify specieism along the lines "of course it's different, I am human and I prioritize the welfare of other humans". But if we accept that argument, we'd be hard-pressed not to accept "I am [white / male] and I prioritize the welfare of other [white / male] people", the exact same toxic tribalism we rejected earlier. Specieism and tribalism are two sides of the same coin. Arguments for or against specisism unavoidably carry over as arguments for or against tribalism, and vice versa.

How can speciesism be anywhere near being related to tribalism?

I think slavery was wrong because someone should not be treated as livestock based on the color of their skin. They are humans just as us and deserve equal human rights and dignity.

It is not wrong to treat a cow like a cow.

Think of how wrong it would be to say that a black woman's life is worth the same as a pig's. It's disgusting and racist.

 

[angrysoba]

How can speciesism be anywhere near being related to tribalism?

I think slavery was wrong because someone should not be treated as livestock based on the color of their skin. They are humans just as us and deserve equal human rights and dignity.

It is not wrong to treat a cow like a cow.

Now this is question-begging. The very thing at issue is whether or not animals (such as cows) should be treated as they are. You argue that they should on the basis that they are animals.

Think of how wrong it would be to say that a black woman's life is worth the same as a pig's. It's disgusting and racist.

I don't think anyone buys your phoney outrage because nobody is equating a black woman with a pig except you. The point is that the argument that pigs don't matter because they are pigs and not human is analogous to racism or sexism.

 

[Belz...]

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about at this point.

Honestly I regret going off-topic so much. If we're to discuss moral relativism in more depth I think we should continue this in another thread. If you start one, let me know.

Saying "People do A because X or Y and/or Z" is not "assuming that those who do A do so because of Z".

I was saying that it's my experience that argument A is used to lead to Z, not that that's what you were doing, specifically.

^^ That's kind of what I was getting at earlier in the thread. It was legal for Romans to kill their wives for drinking alcohol. In my country Aboriginals were not considered people and it was legal to shoot them on sight in some states right up until the early 20th century. There's no reason to think that today's moral standards are absolute. I tend to think future generations will look back at our industrial slaughter of animals with similar horror that we do the Holocaust.

No one's saying that mores don't change. In fact I said so specifically. But if you want to convince people on a topic like this, reason might not be enough -- you might need to convince people emotionally as well, and that's very difficult to do.

Back to the topic, my stance is that I have no problem killing animals for food, so long as we minimise the pain and anguish caused. That last bit is because if empathy and a small number of other reasons. With plants this isn't a problem, because as I said, killing for food is OK. People are exceptions, and despite what Cain thinks, it's not a contradiction because there are other factors, other principles involved that make this issue not entirely black-and-white for me. Having said that, telling me that it's wrong to kill animals for food isn't likely to change my mind because I disagree with the premise.

 

[Kahalachan]

I don't think anyone buys your phoney outrage because nobody is equating a black woman with a pig except you. The point is that the argument that pigs don't matter because they are pigs and not human is analogous to racism or sexism.

Do you know what speciesism is?

If you are not speciesist, you are forced to admit that a black woman's life is equal to that of a pig. If not, then you are saying that human life is more valuable, which is what most of us agree to be to be the morally correct choice.

 

[angrysoba]

Do you know what speciesism is?

Yes.

If you are not speciesist, you are forced to admit that a black woman's life is equal to that of a pig.

No.

If not, then you are saying that human life is more valuable, which is what most of us agree to be to be the morally correct choice.

Or you could say that human life is not the only thing of value, or that what gives human life value is not exclusive to humans.

Speciesism could involve assuming that suffering is bad, but only if it is human suffering.

 

[Kahalachan]

No.

Have a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

 

[angrysoba]

Have a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

Why don't you quote where it says what you say it says?

Anyway, here is Peter Singer's view in the same article:

Singer argued from a preference-utilitarian perspective, writing that speciesism violates the principle of equal consideration of interests, the idea based on Jeremy Bentham's principle: "each to count for one, and none for more than one." Singer argued that, although there may be differences between humans and nonhumans, they share the capacity to suffer, and we must give equal consideration to that suffering. Any position that allows similar cases to be treated in a dissimilar fashion fails to qualify as an acceptable moral theory.

Now, is there any suffering that a cow can have which you think is unacceptable or do you think that anything a cow suffers is acceptable on the basis that it is a cow?

 

[bit_pattern]

It is not wrong to treat a cow like a cow.

Think of how wrong it would be to say that a black woman's life is worth the same as a pig's. It's disgusting and racist.

So much logical fallacy. Hard to know where to begin.

You're making an a priori assumption that the innate nature of a cow or a pig is to exist in servitude to humans. A slaver might equally say "it's not wrong to treat a slave like a slave" - indeed, I believe that was a very common sentiment. It's only "disgusting" to say that a human life is worth the same as a pig's if you assume that a pig's lot in life should be to suffer for the good of humanity. That speaks more to your attitudes than it does to the supposed "racism" of someone who might place value on the life of a non-human.

 

[bit_pattern]

No one's saying that mores don't change. In fact I said so specifically. But if you want to convince people on a topic like this, reason might not be enough -- you might need to convince people emotionally as well, and that's very difficult to do.

Yeah I may have missed your point.

As for the emotional thing, I tend to think that if your average meat consumer saw what goes on in an abattoir they'd likely have a very visceral emotional reaction. It's easy to be dismissive of moral concerns when your meat arrives in sanitised, plastic-wrapped packages and you don't have to look at pain, fear and death in the eye.

 

[Belz...]

Do you know what speciesism is?

If you are not speciesist, you are forced to admit that a black woman's life is equal to that of a pig. If not, then you are saying that human life is more valuable, which is what most of us agree to be to be the morally correct choice.

Might not be speciesism, but just valuing some results more than others.

You're making an a priori assumption that the innate nature of a cow or a pig is to exist in servitude to humans. A slaver might equally say "it's not wrong to treat a slave like a slave" - indeed, I believe that was a very common sentiment. It's only "disgusting" to say that a human life is worth the same as a pig's if you assume that a pig's lot in life should be to suffer for the good of humanity. That speaks more to your attitudes than it does to the supposed "racism" of someone who might place value on the life of a non-human.

I think it's possible to argue that a human's life is worth more than a pig's if you state your assumptions clearly and agree to them. For instance, people have long-term planning and expectations, a greater understanding of life and death, abstract understanding, the ability to create more complex and long-lasting works, etc. Assuming you value those things, such an agreement can be achieved.

As for the emotional thing, I tend to think that if your average meat consumer saw what goes on in an abattoir they'd likely have a very visceral emotional reaction.

I agree. I maintain that we should be careful what conclusions we draw from our emotional reactions, however. Weigh the pros and cons of our decisions, etc. and take into consideration that others have different emotional reactions that may be just as legitimate.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Yeah I may have missed your point.

As for the emotional thing, I tend to think that if your average meat consumer saw what goes on in an abattoir they'd likely have a very visceral emotional reaction. It's easy to be dismissive of moral concerns when your meat arrives in sanitised, plastic-wrapped packages and you don't have to look at pain, fear and death in the eye.

Depends on how hungry they are. We were hunting meat for millions of years before we starting farming it. Personally, I am more concerned with how the animals live than with the killing.

 

[Belz...]

Depends on how hungry they are. We were hunting meat for millions of years before we starting farming it. Personally, I am more concerned with how the animals live than with the killing.

So am I. Which is why I'm against those ridiculous gestation crates. Let the damn pigs move, for ****'s sake.

 

[Soapy Sam]

That's a fair point, if mirror neurons do not exist.
If they do, then we may have no choice as we have no choice about (eg fear of the dark).

I'm not actually sure there is an answer to the should question. We're back to the moral absolute v relative debate, which , lets face it , we have had here many times without resolution. Having an answer (possibly) to why we do seems better than nothing to me.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

That's a fair point, if mirror neurons do not exist.
If they do, then we may have no choice as we have no choice about (eg fear of the dark).

I'm not actually sure there is an answer to the should question. We're back to the moral absolute v relative debate, which , lets face it , we have had here many times without resolution. Having an answer (possibly) to why we do seems better than nothing to me.

In that case, how would you respond to the question of why should we care, in your own words? That's the part I have the most difficulty with.