John Stossel Goes After PETA Tonight...

[supercorgi]

If it tastes nice, maybe.

I'm just curious, how do you see the keeping of pets? Is it moral, immoral? I just want to know.

 

[RandFan]

Cain

This is yet another stupid, vacuous comparison from an empty headed fool. Life in the wild is not some sort of "baseline" or standard for judgement because our domestication does not preclude that circle of life from carrying on (except in cases when the bioindustry literally impinges on nature).

Not at all relevant to my point. Anyone who thinks that removing humans from the equation is going to effectively do something for animals is only fooling themselves. You want to remove humans from the equation that is fine but that is not going to change anything.

Again, if you want to improve conditions for some of the animals that is fine but a prohibition on domesticated animals is no solution to anything other than a change in circumstance and for many it will only be worse. They will all be forced to face survival and will die of predation, starvation, disease or the elements.

The same exact argument could be made -- and, incidentally, was made -- with respect to black slaves brought over to America. Living standards for blacks increased dramatically in the last one-hundred years of slavery...

The "black slaves" you are referring to were human. Before they were captured they lived in complex societies unlike many animal species. Their mortality rate was comparatively low which is why they ever continued to migrate around the world to places with very extreme climates and conditions. They fashioned shelter, built fire, made weapons and used their brains in abstract ways to confront predators and the elements. They were able to change their environment so that they could spend time in ritual, music, dance and art. Animals have little in the way that humans do. They don't have such alternatives as fire and shelter. They largely only have predation and the elements to look forward to. I'm sure there are pleasant moments of life for many animals but they are mostly few and far between. Some animals might have some of the luxuries of time that the pre-black slaves had but that was the exception and not the rule.

Further, I stated plainly this does not justify anything humans do. If you want to attempt to end any human involvement in the predation of animals that's fine, just don't delude yourself into thinking that you are accomplishing anything.

Really bad example Cain.

 

[Cain]

Astonishingly, you miss the point. The thought experiment was in response to your own thought experiment where you said; ” People often quote one PETA lunatic who said that if he could cure all the disease in the world by killing one rat, he wouldn't do it. OK, same situation, but let's replace rat with human.”

As you'll find there are a number of extremely vocal anti-animal rights "libertarians" on this board who, I'm sure, would argue that an initiation of force is absolutely wrong because it violates so-called "natural rights." The point is not the thought experiment -- meaning the specific responses -- but how people respond to it: they hesitate in one case while dismissing the other (correctly, in my opinion) as crazy. Do you see the thematic thread in my original post: that people are outraged -- outraged -- at the violence and "FORCE" of militant animal rights activists, yet completely indifferent to the consequences of their own lifestyle choices.

But I'm sure this just sails right over head.

Which is a bogus argument. The “law of unintended consequences” can come into play for any decision, including a hypothetical decision to change the diet of the world.

I'm afraid this is a non sequitur. Yes, unintended consequences can follow any change in policy, however, truly dramatic scenarios, I think it is fair to say, tread in more unknown variables. In simpler terms for you to understand: it's easier to predict some things than it is other things (drool). Here's exhibit A: time travel (your example).

I suspect this is rather intuitive.

Yet you fail to state what is wrong with the argument.

Ah, I see we are reduced to mere assertion. Heartwarming.


Well, let us deal with another one of RanFan's ineffectual non-replies:

Not at all relevant to my point. Anyone who thinks that removing humans from the equation is going to effectively do something for animals is only fooling themselves. You want to remove humans from the equation that is fine but that is not going to change anything.

You cannot possibly be this dumb. Are you suggesting that if humans refrained from eating animals that it will make no difference?

Again, if you want to improve conditions for some of the animals that is fine but a prohibition on domesticated animals is no solution to anything other than a change in circumstanc and for many it will only be worse. They will all be forced to face survival and will die of predation, starvation, disease or the elements.

Gobsmacking. Yes, animals will continue to die terribly in "nature": Lions will tear their prey limb from limb, snakes will poison suspicious intruders, males will get gored on the horns of other males, female primates will be raped, and so on. But here's the thing: the billions of animals we raise for food won't suffer because they won't exist. We won't have to provide care for them, improve their conditions, etc. because they just won't be around. I do hope this is a scenario you can grasp.

"Black slaves" are human and therefore capable of living a far better and more productive life and to appreciate freedom through a change in circumstance. Animals only have predation and the elements to look forward to.

I'm afraid this is speciesist argument. As chance would have it, it's also a specious argument (but no matter).

Further, I stated plainly this does not justify anything humans do.

Continuing in the same vein, this is a free-floating distinction; that is to say it does not rest upon an argument. It rests upon a speciesist distinction -- one that is morally arbitrary, and therefore irrational.

This goes back to a standby arsenal in the case for animal rights: The argument from marginal cases.

Here is philosopher Peter Singer's syllogism (quoted from a random website):

(1) In order to conclude that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status (and therefore that no animals deserve a full and equal moral status), there must be some property P that all and only human beings have that can ground such a claim.

(2) Any P that only human beings have is a property that (some) human beings lack (e.g., the marginal cases).

(3) Any P that all human beings have is a property that (most) animals have as well.

(4) Therefore, there is no way to defend the claim that all and only human beings deserve a full and equal moral status.

Since that is rather abstract, I will offer some concrete suggestions: comparing (say) Terri Shaivo with a dog; or an infant with a primate. What matters is are morally signficiant characteristics, and membership of a species does not suffice.

 

[Ducky]

So who's up for some barbecue at TAM? Is there a good steakhouse near the Stardust?

 

[RandFan]

You cannot possibly be this dumb. Are you suggesting that if humans refrained from eating animals that it will make no difference?

I did not say "no difference". It wil make no substantive difference to the quality of life for animals.

Yes, animals will continue to die terribly in "nature": Lions will tear their prey limb from limb, snakes will poison suspicious intruders, males will get gored on the horns of other males, female primates will be raped, and so on. But here's the thing: the billions of animals we raise for food won't suffer because they won't exist. We won't have to provide care for them, improve their conditions, etc. because they just won't be around. I do hope this is a scenario you can grasp.

Getting rid of domesticated animals does what for animals? It takes a portion of them out of the equation. BFD.

I'm afraid this is speciesist argument. As chance would have it, it's also a specious argument (but no matter).

No, it's simply a point of fact. The argument that it would be better for some people to be slaves is not supported by the evidence. One can make an argument that the domestication of animals is in many ways better for the animals.

Continuing in the same vein, this is a free-floating distinction; that is to say it does not rest upon an argument. It rests upon a speciesist distinction -- one that is morally arbitrary, and therefore irrational.

No, not "morally arbitrary", factually substantive. Calling something arbitrary does not make it so.

Since that is rather abstract, I will offer some concrete suggestions: comparing (say) Terri Shaivo with a dog; or an infant with a primate. What matters is are morally signficiant characteristics, and membership of a species does not suffice.

Hey, I was all for putting Terri Shaivo down. As for Singer and Utilitarian philosophy I agree with Carl Cohen.

The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty governing all, including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just. Only in a community of beings capable of self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked.

Further Cohen points out that the notion of a person by person test for moral judgment misses the point. Pitting a chimp against an infant is simply wrong. What grants us moral rights, in part, is the ability of our species to comprehend moral duty.

 

[RandFan]

So who's up for some barbecue at TAM? Is there a good steakhouse near the Stardust?

Oh man is there ever some great steakhouses.

 

[Cylinder]

"I am a nice shark, not a mindless eating machine. If I am to change this image, I must first change myself. Fish are friends, not food."

-Shark support group in Finding Nemo

 

[Ducky]

"I am a nice shark, not a mindless eating machine. If I am to change this image, I must first change myself. Fish are friends, not food."

-Shark support group in Finding Nemo

Is Argument by cartoon an accepted logical fallacy?

It should be.

 

[Cain]

I did not say "no difference". It wil make no substantive difference to the quality of life for animals.

Getting rid of domesticated animals does what for animals? It takes a portion of them out of the equation. BFD.

No, it's simply a point of fact. The argument that it would be better for some people to be slaves is not supported by the evidence. One can make an argument that the domestication of animals is in many ways better for the animals.

This is unbelievably silly. Let us break down the animals under discussion into into two groups: 1) Domesticated animals; 2) Wild Animals.

Saying domesticated animals have it better than wild animals is to say nothing at all if two facts hold true: 1) domesticated animals suffer; 2) domesticated animals do not need to suffer (meaning, for example, that there are alternative sources of food). Not only are your claims highly questionable (with respect to animal welfare on factory farms) but they are irrelevant; a red-herring.

It's not as though -- as you sometimes come close to unintentionally suggesting -- we're taking animals out of the wild and raising them in a better environment. These spheres of life are for the most part non-overlapping (again, with the previously mentioned exception of when the industrial farming displaces and/or imposes upon natural habitat).

No, not "morally arbitrary", factually substantive. Calling something arbitrary does not make it so.

Of course it doesn't, which is why I've followed it up with an argument -- apparently a foreign concept in your bizarro world. Ironically, for some reason you believe calling something "factually substantive" makes it so.

Hey, I was all for putting Terri Shaivo down. As for Singer and Utilitarian philosophy I agree with Carl Cohen.

Further Cohen points out that the notion of a person by person test for moral judgment misses the point. Pitting a chimp against an infant is simply wrong. What grants us moral rights, in part, is the ability of our species to comprehend moral duty.

Ah, what great fun it is to see a self-described "libertarian" twist himself into knots to defend violence by positing a collectivist theory of rights! I believe this is what Dan Dennett had in mind when he was defining a "skyhook."

The simple fact of the matter -- I presume undisputed -- is that children, infants, fetuses, and the severly retarded cannot comprehend moral duty. Now it seems you are suggesting a theory reminiscent of Douglass's psychedelic opinion on a "penumbra emanating" from the Constitution.

Oh please, please, please explain how an infant gets rights and a chimpanzee does not because a lot of humans (allegedly) understand the esoteric concept of moral duty. This is thorough-going speceism because you're failing (quite spectacularly) to identify a morally significant difference.

Furthermore, I wonder what the reason is, given this rather idiosyncratic (in my opinion, ad hoc) view of rights has to offer to justify anti-cruelty laws. Or perhaps anti-cruelty laws are unjustified...?

 

[Geckko]

...explain how an infant gets rights and a chimpanzee does not because a lot of humans (allegedly) understand the esoteric concept of moral duty. This is thorough-going speceism because you're failing (quite spectacularly) to identify a morally significant difference.

Furthermore, I wonder what the reason is, given this rather idiosyncratic (in my opinion, ad hoc) view of rights has to offer to justify anti-cruelty laws. Or perhaps anti-cruelty laws are unjustified...?

I don't see anything ad hoc about the distinction. We hold the rights of children under reserve. As an infant human who will grow into a being who will exercise moral reason the child comes under the umbrella of human rights. A similar, though different concession is made to those mentally incapable of fully excercising moral reason.

Towhit, a 2 year would never find himself on murder charge (or any criminal charge for that matter).

A chimpanzee, or lion or whatever will never possess the moral reason neeeded to understnad what murder or assault is for example. A lion that attacks someone in the wild will not be accused of a crime and prosecuted.

 

[monoman]

1. Millions of animals are bulldozed live into trenches right now due to the bird flue which only spreads because poulrty is being raised for human consumption.

In which countries/factorys is this happening?

The way to deal with this, if you personally disagree with it, is to boycott poulty products from that country/supplier - not put the blame on everyone who eats meat.

I would add that, in the case of bird flu, one would probabely be doing that anyway

 

[RandFan]

Not only are your claims highly questionable (with respect to animal welfare on factory farms) but they are irrelevant; a red-herring.

There are no claims. I'm only stating facts.

It's not as though -- as you sometimes come close to unintentionally suggesting -- we're taking animals out of the wild and raising them in a better environment.

It may very well often be a better environment. In the wild most animals are killed and eaten shortly after birth. In the wild animals go hungry, and are at great peril to disease, injury and the elements. Domesticated animals aren't.

Of course it doesn't, which is why I've followed it up with an argument -- apparently a foreign concept in your bizarro world. Ironically, for some reason you believe calling something "factually substantive" makes it so.

Yes, it is a fact. Saying it is not will not change it. What argument did you follow-up with?

Ah, what great fun it is to see a self-described "libertarian" twist himself into knots to defend violence by positing a collectivist theory of rights! I believe this is what Dan Dennett had in mind when he was defining a "skyhook."

Is there supposed to be an argument in there somewhere.

The simple fact of the matter -- I presume undisputed -- is that children, infants, fetuses, and the severely retarded cannot comprehend moral duty.

That is correct.

Now it seems you are suggesting a theory reminiscent of Douglass's psychedelic opinion on a "penumbra emanating" from the Constitution.

No, I'm telling you that humans are moral agents. Animals are not. However, even if we assume for the sake of argument that there exists humans who are not entitled to rights that would not then be a valid argument that animals should get rights. One has nothing to do with the other.

Oh please, please, please explain how an infant gets rights and a chimpanzee does not because a lot of humans (allegedly) understand the esoteric concept of moral duty. This is thorough-going speceism because you're failing (quite spectacularly) to identify a morally significant difference.

Because humans are moral agents and it is in our interest.

Furthermore, I wonder what the reason is, given this rather idiosyncratic (in my opinion, ad hoc) view of rights has to offer to justify anti-cruelty laws. Or perhaps anti-cruelty laws are unjustified...?

Humans are moral agents. We are offended by unnecessary suffering. Anti-cruelty laws are human constructs to reduce unnecessary suffering because of our ability to empathize. We understand what it is to suffer and we are opposed to the needless suffering of animals. That's a one way street though.

 

[rikzilla]

Oh man is there ever some great steakhouses.

RF! I'll see you soon man...very, very soon! You too Fowl! Damn! I'm so looking forward to a great juicy steak with you guys in Sin City!

-z

 

[Earthborn]

No, I'm telling you that humans are moral agents. Animals are not.

What is it that exists in humans making them moral agents that does not exist in any other animal?

However, even if we assume for the sake of argument that there exists humans who are not entitled to rights that would not then be a valid argument that animals should get rights.

It can however mean that the basis on which one makes a moral distinction between animals and humans is flawed.

 

[rikzilla]

What is it that exists in humans making them moral agents that does not exist in any other animal?

Reason

It can however mean that the basis on which one makes a moral distinction between animals and humans is flawed.

Moral pronouncements are in essence subjective and thus may appear flawed from perspectives outside the society, religion, or civilization that initially created the moral judgement in question. Thus almost any moral decision may be judged flawed by someone somewhere.

But if you really want to see "flawed" take another look at PETA. Hypocrisy, criminal acts, hubris, and stupidity are taken to dizzying new heights by an absurd degree of self-righteousness. Morality may be "flawed"...PETA is completely insane.

-z

 

[supercorgi]

So who's up for some barbecue at TAM? Is there a good steakhouse near the Stardust?

I think there's one of those Brazilian restaurants where they bring all sorts of meat to your table on these giant skewers. Yum! Carnivore heaven.

 

[Camillus]

It's an interesting aside in all this moral argument to look at a bit of history. The first animal cruelty laws came on the books in the 1820's. The first laws offering similar protection to children did not appear until the 1870's.

The key difference is that laws protecting children grew out of a belief that children were not the property of their parents but autonomous agents worthy of protection until such time as they can join society as fully functional individuals*.

Laws protecting animals recognise them for what they are: property with special features that make them deserving of a degree of protection from their owner or keeper not commonly afforded to other types of possession.

An animal, no matter how charming or bright, can never aspire to join human society as a fully functioning member. It cannot autonomously choose how to contribute to the economy and fabric and it cannot be called to account for its actions before a jury of its peers.

It should not therefore be elevated to a special platform and ascribed special rights. Animals are property and we as their owners will get the best out of them if we treat them well.

*Actually the early laws were more concerned with keeping starving urchins and beggars out of view, but they grew quickly from there.

 

[Earthborn]

Reason

Is there any chance that you can define that in a way that is both scientifically meaningful and shows its moral relevance, and then prove that it exists in humans but not in other animals?

Moral pronouncements are in essence subjective and thus may appear flawed from perspectives outside the society, religion, or civilization that initially created the moral judgement in question. Thus almost any moral decision may be judged flawed by someone somewhere.

Which just shows that it isn't such a great idea to seek justification for moral pronouncements outside of society, religion or civilisation. It is especially problematic to seek justification for them in perceived 'innate' distinctions between one group and another.

But if you really want to see "flawed" take another look at PETA. Hypocrisy, criminal acts, hubris, and stupidity are taken to dizzying new heights by an absurd degree of self-righteousness. Morality may be "flawed"...PETA is completely insane.

Other than that it has nothing to do with what I said, no argument. I'm still mad at them for their position during the Foot-and-Mouth crisis.

 

[rikzilla]

Is there any chance that you can define that in a way that is both scientifically meaningful and shows its moral relevance, and then prove that it exists in humans but not in other animals?

No...and now we hear the soft scraping as goal posts are trundled to a more favorable portion of the playing field...hark!

Reason was my answer...lest you forget...to this question:

What is it that exists in humans making them moral agents that does not exist in any other animal?

Show me the species other than homo sapiens which has experienced an "Age of Enlightenment" and I will conceed your point. If you have no evidence of such then your second question is one of ignorance, speculation, and begging the question.

Which just shows that it isn't such a great idea to seek justification for moral pronouncements outside of society, religion or civilisation. It is especially problematic to seek justification for them in perceived 'innate' distinctions between one group and another.

This makes no sense. You say that morality is meaningless outside society, religion, or civilization...and yet no one is making moral pronouncements that travel beyond these areas. It would be silly to say; "I hypothesize that adultery is immoral" and then pop into a lab to test it. There are of course many things which cannot be tested...but you knew that already didn't you?

Intellectual dishonesty is now added to the list of your sins....

Other than that it has nothing to do with what I said, no argument. I'm still mad at them for their position during the Foot-and-Mouth crisis.

Hey, you're the one who attacked "morality" as flawed in a PeTa-is-stupid thread...not me.

-z

 

[armageddonman]

In which countries/factorys is this happening?

It's happening in Asia, India and Eastern Europe. OK, maybe they are not bulldozed in live this time. Maybe they are shreddered or gassed.

The way to deal with this, if you personally disagree with it, is to boycott poulty products from that country/supplier - not put the blame on everyone who eats meat.

Of course the people who eat meat are to blame. If nobody would eat meat, no animals would be raised for food.

I would add that, in the case of bird flu, one would probabely be doing that anyway

Only to domesticated birds. Guess for what purpose they are being domesticated?