Admit it, you believe in animal rights.

[volatile]

I think the solution to your stated issue is encapsulated in the wording you use: "an irrational hypocrisy".

There are many ways that the eating of one type of animal can be quite rational compared to the eating of another animal.

For example we could use the meat of the animal as our consideration (to remove any concept of "cuddly feelings" from the question) and a cat may not be very nice to eat in terms of the meat's texture or taste, quantity of meat per cat, cost to raise that meat all of which are quite rational reasons to choose to eat a lamb over a cat.

That doesn't work for me, because I still have an ethical issue with unnecessary cruelty to animals. Punching a cow in the face, or leaving a sheep to starve, or drop-kicking a chicken are all problematic in my view, and I think in the views of most people. So, as Teek said, why are we suddenly OK with bolts through their brains?

Slaughtering is unnecessary for me because I live in an industrialised country where it is possible to live healthily without it. I don't need to harm that cow by putting a bolt through its brain any more than I need to punch it in the face, other than for its taste - that is, beef sure is tasty. I love meat. But if you compare that to punching a cow in the face - I presume people who would do that would find some kind of gratification in the act. How is that different to me getting taste gratification from eating the cow?

For me personally, I don't think fleeting personal gratification is enough to trump broader ethical principles (for example, driving fast is fun; dropping litter is convenient). Again, I think that's a general standard that most people adhere to in other areas of their lives; we all seem to have a blindspot where our diets are concerned. I know I did.

 

[RandFan]

It touches upon what Teek said, really. Why was I not cool with killing cats for food, or my pet pigs, but still content to tuck in to pork chops for dinner? Why did I find the idea of stunning a dog or a monkey or a horse or an elephant with a bolt through their brains horrific, but perfectly OK with the same action on a sheep or a cow.

I, like most people, have a general sense that hurting animals unnecessarily is wrong. Seeing as I can eat just as healthily without killing animals, on what basis should I continue to do so if my ethics are to be consistent? That's all.

I'm not dogmatically against eating animals for food. If you're a subsistence farmer or you're starving hungry in the jungle, then hell yes, tuck in. But I buy my food from supermarkets, so why would I pick the chicken over the tofu? I wouldn't kill a cat. Why would I pay someone to kill a pig?

I wouldn't dream of suggesting everyone follow my position; nevertheless, I am convinced that it is the most internally consistent and non-hypocritical one to take if you have a general sense animal cruelty is wrong.

Thank you for the response. I understand you better. It would be possible to not want to kill cats for a number of reasons (don't like the taste) but still be consistent with killing cows but I can see that your reasons would not be consistent.

I personally wouldn't care if we ate cats for food and also had them for pets.

That said I respect very much your position. I'm a big fan of choice.

 

[RandFan]

So, as Teek said, why are we suddenly OK with bolts through their brains?

IMO, because it isn't wanton depravity. It isn't done to cause suffering. I think there is an appreciable difference.

 

[volatile]

Thank you for the response. I understand you better. It would be possible to not want to kill cats for a number of reasons (don't like the taste) but still be consistent with killing cows but I can see that your reasons would not be consistent.

I personally wouldn't care if we ate cats for food and also had them for pets.

That said I respect very much your position. I'm a big fan of choice.

Oh, that's fine. If you've thought it through and are still hungry for that steak, that's cool with me. I don't necessarily agree, but as I said, I'm not dogmatic.

As Teek pointed out though, I don't think most people have really thought about their diets in anything approaching a rational or sceptical way. I hadn't.

 

[volatile]

IMO, because it isn't wanton depravity. It isn't done to cause suffering. I think there is an appreciable difference.

How come? The net result for the cow is the same. And if you accept my hypothesis that it is possible to live just as well without killing cows, then it starts to at least move towards wantonness in my view. It becomes killing solely for the sake of personal gratification, not too far removed (though I accept it is removed) from that which you call wanton.

 

[paximperium]

I think the solution to your stated issue is encapsulated in the wording you use: "an irrational hypocrisy".

There are many ways that the eating of one type of animal can be quite rational compared to the eating of another animal.

For example we could use the meat of the animal as our consideration (to remove any concept of "cuddly feelings" from the question) and a cat may not be very nice to eat in terms of the meat's texture or taste, quantity of meat per cat, cost to raise that meat all of which are quite rational reasons to choose to eat a lamb over a cat.

That's the wrong way to cook cat.
I recommend a good tomato based Cat-Soup.

 

[paximperium]

How come? The net result for the cow is the same. And if you accept my hypothesis that it is possible to live just as well without killing cows, then it starts to at least move towards wantonness in my view. It becomes killing solely for the sake of personal gratification, not too far removed (though I accept it is removed) from that which you call wanton.

Sorry, but I find that very judgmental.

Who are you(or anyone) to decide that gratification from meat eating is not a good enough personal reason for killing a cow?

I find significant pleasure and nourishment from eating meat. Could I live without it, sure I could but I have no inclination towards careful meal/caloric /vitamin etc. control like vegans do and find no pleasure in such a diet.

 

[RandFan]

How come? The net result for the cow is the same.

If I had a choice between being tortured and killed or simply being killed I would choose not to be tortured. I'm not sure why. I'm funny that way.

And if you accept my hypothesis that it is possible to live just as well without killing cows, then it starts to at least move towards wantonness in my view. It becomes killing solely for the sake of personal gratification, not too far removed (though I accept it is removed) from that which you call wanton.

As I've said before, I have little doubt that subsequent generations will eat less and less meat. Wanting to hurt something because it excites pleasure centers in the brain is different than wanting to kill something because eating its muscle and flesh excites pleasure centers in the brain are significantly different IMO. So, while I see your argument and find it valid I see a bigger difference than you. But that's fine. I can live with that. Unless of course the aliens don't have a problem eating human muscle and flesh. In which case I'm in a world of hurt since they will eat the fat ones first.

Damn aliens.

 

[volatile]

Sorry, but I find that very judgmental.

Who are you(or anyone) to decide that gratification from meat eating is not a good enough personal reason for killing a cow?

I find significant pleasure and nourishment from eating meat. Could I live without it, sure I could but I have no inclination towards careful meal/caloric /vitamin etc. control like vegans do and find no pleasure in such a diet.

I find personal gratification at the expense of an otherwise sincerely held belief hypocritical. Don't you?

I don't "judge" anyone but myself. I, personally, do not find that my enjoyment of the taste of meat is sufficient to supersede the problem I have with those who harm animals for no compelling reason. I don't speed in my car. I don't drop litter. I don't buy sweatshop clothes. All those things would make my life easier and more fun, but as I have a broader code of ethics that all of those things intercede with, I refrain from them. I apply the same standards to my diet as I do to the rest of my life. What's so wrong with that?

If you find the broader idea of animal cruelty problematic (as most people do, I think), then you should be vegetarian. In my opinion.

 

[volatile]

If I had a choice between being tortured and killed or simply being killed I would choose not to be tortured. I'm not sure why. I'm funny that way.

Did you deliberately miss the option of not being killed at all that is at the heart of my argument? :-D

Sure, I agree with you that ethical husbandry and slaughter practices are preferable to the alternatives. But no killing animals for food at all is preferable to all of the above, given that I find the idea of harming animals unnecessarily to be ethically problematic.

Note, I don't think killing animals is always wrong. I am perfectly OK with animal testing for scientific purposes, for example. But there's a cost/benefit ratio to be done here. I wouldn't kill a cat if I had no compelling reason to do so. Given that I personally do not find personal gratification a compelling reason, I won't eat cows. If you, or others, do, then that's fine.

As I've said before, I have little doubt that subsequent generations will eat less and less meat. Wanting to hurt something because it excites pleasure centers in the brain is different than wanting to kill something because eating its muscle and flesh excites pleasure centers in the brain are significantly different IMO.

Why? Isn't that just special pleading? What's so different about pleasure from eating and pleasure from other sources? What's so incredible about beef that eating it should supersede your general ethics? I don't get it.

So, while I see your argument and find it valid I see a bigger difference than you. But that's fine. I can live with that. Unless of course the aliens don't have a problem eating human muscle and flesh. In which case I'm in a world of hurt since they will eat the fat ones first.

Damn aliens.

LOL. I agree with you. You've obviously given this some thought and come to a different conclusion to me. That's cool.

I have most issue with people who haven't thought about what they eat, and just eat without thinking about it. Before I gave any thought to the matter, that is certainly why I ate meat. I ate meat because I always had done. Just as I'd been raised an unthinking theist, I'd been raised an unthinking omnivore. I'd just never thought about why I ate meat. In fact, I always asked vegetarians why they didn't. I'd never turned that question round onto myself.

When I asked myself the question "Why do I eat meat?", I couldn't think of a good reason other than "It tastes good", and, for the reasons I've already explained, that wasn't compelling enough for me.

 

[billydkid]

I'm always amused by the people who have no issue with an animal dying just to satisfy their tastebuds, as long as it didn't suffer first. "Yeah, I care, but only to a point, you know? I mean, don't let the poor little guy suffer on account of my steak tartare, but sure, I'm happy for it to die for my satisfaction. My compassion only stretches as far as the living part. The dying, I don't think about. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to enjoy this delicious beef with a clear conscience, right?".

I have unusual views about such things, though. I don't expect much agreement. And no, I am not a vegetarian.

There are worse things than dying. Do you really see no distinction between killing an animal humanely and causing an animal pointless suffering? Do really think there is a moral equivalence between killing an animal for food and torturing an animal? Most other animals kill and eat other animals and mankind has done it since long before it was mankind. Would you really have no more problem with the meat industry than you have now if they slaughtered their animals alive? People are going to always eat meat. Don't you think it is better to have some basic standards intended to prevent unnecessary animal suffering in the processing of the animals?

 

[paximperium]

I find personal gratification at the expense of an otherwise sincerely held belief hypocritical. Don't you?

Among many meat eaters yes but I don't hold the view that animals have rights and am more than willing to hunt, skin and dress a deer myself. I'd prefer to reduce suffering if possible.

I don't "judge" anyone but myself. I, personally, do not find that my enjoyment of the taste of meat is sufficient to supersede the problem I have with those who harm animals for no compelling reason. I don't speed in my car. I don't drop litter. I don't buy sweatshop clothes. All those things would make my life easier and more fun, but as I have a broader code of ethics that all of those things intercede with, I refrain from them. I apply the same standards to my diet as I do to the rest of my life. What's so wrong with that?

None as long as it is a personal belief that is not being foisted onto others, I can readily respect that.

If you find the broader idea of animal cruelty problematic (as most people do, I think), then you should be vegetarian. In my opinion.

I do find animal cruelty problematic and that we should decrease suffering where possible however I see no ethical dilemma in using animals as a resource and foodstock.

 

[leonAzul]

Easy.

Does it hurt? Then don't do it.

As a philosophical mind experiment, then go to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

 

[volatile]

Among many meat eaters yes but I don't hold the view that animals have rights and am more than willing to hunt, skin and dress a deer myself. I'd prefer to reduce suffering if possible.

Well then we're back to what might be called Teek's Dilemma, right? You want to "reduce suffering if possible", but only as far as it doesn't interfere with your desire to taste meat. Does that sound rational to you? You find the idea of animal suffering difficult to stomach, but you're content to step over that particular ethical position because it is less important to you that enjoying the taste of meat. That just seems weird to me; sorry.

In other words, it is possible to reduce suffering. Don't hunt the deer in the first place.

None as long as it is a personal belief that is not being foisted onto others, I can readily respect that.

If you want to eat meat, that's fine with me. I still think it's legitimate to discuss the issue though. That's not foisting, to my mind. It's just debate.

I do find animal cruelty problematic and that we should decrease suffering where possible however I see no ethical dilemma in using animals as a resource and foodstock.

The two halves of that sentence seem to me to be utterly ethically incompatible. If you truly think we should decrease suffering, then logically you should not kill animals for food, surely? Help me out here, I'm trying to understand how you can want to decrease suffering wherever possible, but are still OK with killing animals for food. If you live in America or Europe, is perfectly possible to eat a full, healthy, varied, tasty and delicious diet without killing animals at minimal cost in terms of effort and time / convenience. You can reduce animal suffering. So what's stopping you? How do you justify personal gratification trumping your obviously sincere desire not to harm animals?

I don't understand. Indeed, it's precisely because I couldn't reconcile those two positions to my own satisfaction than I had to jettison one of them. So help me out. What am I missing?

 

[Cain]

The Magic of Make-Believe

This has probably been said, but:

I don't believe in the right of animals to be free from abuse. I believe in the right of human society to be free from animal abuse.

I'm sure a lot of people are willing to latch onto this statement, which adds credence to the view that strong arguments are not as persuasive as a good turn of phrase rationalizing our biases. A society can have rights? Philosophically that's a much, much more radical view than recognizing the rights of individual non-humans.

I think everyone on this board should be open to the idea that non-humans can have rights (my oft-invoked aliens). The question is which characteristics are important.

When it gets down to it, I do not think many will fully accept the idea that a man tortures a dog in the forest, and he did nothing wrong because nobody knows it suffered.

-------------------

Randfan

And yet you never learned that morality isn't absolute.

How sad. You still do not understand the difference between absolute and universal morality.

That our sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that could have been very different. There is nothing special or transcendent about humans.

This is rich. You're accusing me of believing "that there is something special or transcendent about humans."

If humans evolved to kill their siblings in order to survive then that would be moral.

Not quite. I can sign on to a statement that says, "If it proved genetically advantageous for humans to kill their siblings in order to survive and replicate, then humans would consider such behavior moral." Sure. I am the one, after all, who regularly introduces the thought experiment involving vampires. Vampires, as folk lore would have it, are naturally predisposed to consume human blood.

It's not a source of controversy for anthropologists. It's getting you to understand the evolutionary underpinnings of morality and that there is nothing absolute about morality that is like pulling teeth.

I should note that in arguments involving the so-called naturalistic fallacy, I am often the person to bring up Thornhill's argument for a natural history of rape. Just because a behavior has an evolutionary advantage does not mean it's moral. It might be considered moral, much in the same sense xenophobia is a natural disposition for humans (who evolved in small tribes, but that does not justify it. These are the exact sort of counter-arguments used against the all too common meat-eater's claim that "we evolved to eat meat!" I only wish you had paid a little more attention.

 

[RandFan]

Did you deliberately miss the option of not being killed at all that is at the heart of my argument? :-D

Why? Isn't that just special pleading? What's so different about pleasure from eating and pleasure from other sources? What's so incredible about beef that eating it should supersede your general ethics? I don't get it.

It could be special pleading. I'm not sure. It sure seems different to take pleasure in causing a living thing to suffer than simply experiencing pleasure from the byproduct of killing something. This could be due to a number of things including evolutionary predisposition and indoctrination as a child. I was raised to never allow my animals to suffer. I failed once to water the animals on our farm when I was a kid and my father punished me for it. He took a firm view that we were responsible for the well being of the animals and that it was cruel to let them go thirsty.

That said, I think most people would take the same veiw even though they had not been raised on a farm. I'm not making an ad numerum argument just noting that the notion likely is to some degree separate from the morals and ethics instilled in children on farms.

As for my general ethics. I see animal husbandry as a mutually benificial situation. In the wild most animals are exposed to the elements and predation. Most animals are eaten as babies. Those that survive infancy die from predation or the elements before they ever mature. Living in the wild is a game of survival. Eat or be eaten. Fear and hunger are constant companions.

On a well run farm nearly all animals survive inancy and mature. A significant number die of old age. That is not a statistical possibility in the wild. All are treated to prevent illness and to cure infections and injury. They are free from starvation and thirst and are treated well.

"How clever it was of sheep to acquire shepherds!" --Dennett (not meant to be an argument from authority or to suggest that Dennett shares my views on eating meat).

For those that want to reduce the abuses of animal production I fully support that.

LOL. I agree with you. You've obviously given this some thought and come to a different conclusion to me. That's cool.

I have most issue with people who haven't thought about what they eat, and just eat without thinking about it. Before I gave any thought to the matter, that is certainly why I ate meat. I ate meat because I always had done. Just as I'd been raised an unthinking theist, I'd been raised an unthinking omnivore. I'd just never thought about why I ate meat. In fact, I always asked vegetarians why they didn't. I'd never turned that question round onto myself.

When I asked myself the question "Why do I eat meat?", I couldn't think of a good reason other than "It tastes good", and, for the reasons I've already explained, that wasn't compelling enough for me.

Understood.

My answer is that it tastes good and it doesn't bother me that an animal died to provide the good tasting food. Animals die due to predation. Nothing is likely to stop that and I'm not certain that it would be ethical to stop the coyote from eating baby ducks and other animals even it were possible. It doesn't justify the killing and eating but it puts it into prespective.

 

[paximperium]

I don't understand. Indeed, it's precisely because I couldn't reconcile those two positions to my own satisfaction than I had to jettison one of them. So help me out. What am I missing?

Here is the crux of the argument:
What is the worth of an animal?(And I don't mean this in a monetary way)

I am perfectly willing to say that animals do suffer. The more "higher" in the social and intellectual ladder they stand, the more likely they are to suffer similar to us humans. Therefore I'm more willing to empathize and consider the suffering of a gorilla or a dog compared to a mouse or a fish since by our own experience, we could empathize that a chimp feels pain similar to use...but does a bird or a fish feel the same suffering?

Now, here is where value judgment comes into play. We do not have the scientific and objective ability to determine suffering (at this point). So we project our emotions and "suffering" onto animals.

I for one do not see a cow as suffering when held in a pen nor do I see a cow suffering when his brain is bolted...since it is dead. I do not believe that it has the intelligence to really understand its situation although it likely understands fear(to a cow-ish sense) and pain. So, I see little problem with killing a cow with as little pain as possible and eating it.

I also see no issue with hunting and killing a deer since your statement assumes it will go on and live a happy carefree life with no pain and suffering and that it is unnatural to be killed and eaten. However, you know that its natural chances of being killed by a mountain lion are decent and if the deer overpopulated an area we would have to kill them off anyway.

Now the flip question to you is, you place a higher value onto animals than I do.
But is this value the same with a human life?
What about if killing 10 gorillas via medical experimentation could save a human life? or just decrease pain? or give him an erection that will last hours?
What if we have to torture(I mean real pain) 100 chimps and 10000 dogs to find a cure for cancer?
Where do you draw the line because while you avoid eating meat, every medicine you take and nearly every food preservative and chemical used in food was tested on animals for safety?

I place a value on each animal. It is no where near a human's life and human pleasure. It is subjective and arbitrary and liable to change. If someday someone showed that cows scream for mommy and have intelligence and pain sensation similar to humans, I'd be more likely to stop eating cow since we would know they actually suffer...
...maybe switch to lamb since we all know they're stupid.

 

[Highly Selassie]

As Teek pointed out though, I don't think most people have really thought about their diets in anything approaching a rational or sceptical way. I hadn't.

This criticism can also be applied to many vegetarians and vegans. Many vegetarians (and most, if not all vegans) have to supplement the deficiencies in their diet with vegetables that don't grow locally. These vegetables have to be shipped in from thousands of miles away, burning fuel and emitting greenhouse gases in the process. Others take manufactured supplements, which also involve excessive greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these people boast about how their diets are more sustainable, but in the long run they may end up contributing to more greenhouse gas emissions than their friend who eats locally-grown meat.

A society can have rights? Philosophically that's a much, much more radical view than recognizing the rights of individual non-humans.

How so? I don't see the difficulty in extending individual human rights up to a collective of humans. However, I see great philosophical and practical conundrums with granting non-humans rights. For example, which non-humans get which rights and why, and what do you do about animals that infringe upon others' rights?

 

[Michael C]

I agree with you entirely. That said, though - your solution to this ethical dilemma, such that it is, is to feel no qualms at all about the death of any animal. Why not push this in the other direction and feel qualms about the death of all animals?

That's not an easy way out of the dilemma. The set of all animals includes slugs, maggots and the ants that have just found their way into my living room. Do you put them on the same level as dogs, monkeys or humans? Somewhere, you must draw a line. Or, like me (and I think most people) you have some sort of more or less vague scale of values where there is no clear cut demarcation line: for me it's no problem to kill an ant, I have some qualms about killing a pig but I still eat bacon, and I am totally opposed to killing an ape.

If you're going to oppose the killing of all animals, does this include the cockroaches and the horseflies? If not, how do you decide where to draw the line?

 

[volatile]

Great post, RandFan, and I totally understand where you're coming from. My problem, though, is that you're supporting meat-eating with two contradictory platforms.

The first is that animal husbandry is better for the animals than the "natural" alternative, wherein the animals would otherwise die in infancy or not live at all. The second is that animals are predatory by nature and we humans are just part of that wider system. Those two things are contradictory, aren't they?

Whilst I think Cain's a little hostile, I agree with him that the "argument from nature" doesn't really hold and isn't something we humans generally extend into our general ethical principles.