Admit it, you believe in animal rights.

[RandFan]

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.

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.

I can't find anything to disagree with you in this post. I doubt we really have much disagreement. Oh well.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Cain might have reason to be hostile. I can really be a prick at times.

I've got to run but I'll think about your argument. I've really enjoyed the discussion.

 

[paximperium]

I can't find anything to disagree with you in this post. I doubt we really have much disagreement. Oh well.

What is wrong with you people?
All this agreement is nauseating...where is the JREF forum anger and vitriol? Where is the trollish behavior?

I'm disappointed...

 

[volatile]

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?

I draw the line (and sorry for not being clear) at necessity. If cockraoches or fireants or even rats are making my life a misery, making my house more unsanitary or whatever, then I'd kill them. I wouldn't stomp a field mouse under my boot if I was walking in the countryside (most people wouldn't - that's important), but I'd certainly consider poisoning mice in my home if they couldn't be eradicated any other way.

If I'm being attacked by a rabid dog, I'll try and kill it. If it's a choice between a cure for cancer and 10,000 guinea pigs, the cute little critters get it. But with meat, my general position is that for most people, meat eating is unnecessary. It is perfectly possible to live healthily and well without killing animals. So why shouldn't I?

Consistency is the key for me. There are grey areas, of course. There always will be. But meat-eating isn't one of them for me. The tofu and the chicken are right next to each other on the shelf. There is no question in my mind that for me, meat eating is unnecessary.

 

[Highly Selassie]

Never mind, I misunderstood.

 

[RandFan]

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

Wife's not ready to go. (scene from LA Story).

A quick response.

AIU, morality isn't universal, the underlying mechanisms for morality are, to a large degree, universal. If morality were universal then morals wouldn't vary from society to society and across time. If morals were truly universal then there would be no sociopaths.

 

[Darat]

That doesn't work for me, because I still have an ethical issue with unnecessary cruelty to animals.

...snip...

Your statement demonstrates my point. You have adopted an ethical system that if you ate animal flesh you would be being hypocritical however as I showed it is perfectly possible to adopt a system in which the consumption of only certain types of animal flesh does not result in hypocrisy. It all depends on the starting premises someone uses.

 

[volatile]

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?

Do you make that same differentiation when delineating when you're OK with suffering removed from the production of meat? I'm fairly sure you don't. I'm guessing (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you'd no less kill or harm a mouse for fun than you would a pig or cow. So the question still stands as to why this distinction between "higher" and "lower" is OK for food?

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.

Agreed, of course, though it is uncontroversial to state that cows and pigs and sheep are capable of suffering. We have welfare legislation and minimum standards for transporting and keeping livestock for this very reason. I'm sure you understand that.

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.

But you're still left with Teek's Dilemma. The pain you so rightly want to reduce can be entirely reduced if you just didn't kill the animal. Your ethical principles only go as far as your desire for culinary gratification. Don't you find it problematic that what seems to be a genuine, sincere and rational belief is so easily overcome?

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.

The "argument from nature", as already discussed in this thread, is not one we humans generally apply to any other area of our ethical code. I don't think it's justifiable to make an exception in this case, though I could be persuaded otherwise.

Now the flip question to you is, you place a higher value onto animals than I do.

See, I don't think that's the case. I think we broadly agree in terms of general ethical principles. You've already admitted that you want to reduce animal suffering. So why do you stop short of reducing it completely? How do you justify setting your ethics aside for personal gratification?

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've said elsewhere in this thread that my line is necessity. I have little issue with animal testing for medicines, as I see the cost-benefit ratio to be acceptable.

I do not see that the balance is tipped in favour of meat eating; as I've tried to make clear, I do not see "meat tastes nice" as a compelling reason to jettison my concerns at harming animals. Do you think "cure for cancer" and "beef is tasty" are equivalent in their moral weight?

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.

If you've ever been on a farm, or kept animals, you'll know that birds, pigs, sheep and cattle most resolutely do feel pain and distress. I'd like Rolfe or DogDoctor to comment on this if they're reading this, but as far as I know the suggestion that those animals we use for food are more than capable of pain and suffering is not a controversial one. As I already said, as the laws of our respective lands already enshrine this idea in law, I fail to see your point.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

As I've said before, I have little doubt that subsequent generations will eat less and less meat.

...snip...

I can well imagine that future generations will still eat flesh but will also consider our ways of obtaining that flesh quite barbaric. (For instance vat grown flesh is probably not that far from being practical.)

 

[volatile]

Paximperium - on the issue of the suffering of farm animals, may I briefly quote from 'Recognition and management of pain in cattle' by Chris Hudson, Helen Whay and Jon Huxley.

"Pain in humans has been described by the IASP as ‘an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience with actual or potential tissue damage’ (Merskey 1979). It is reasonable to suppose that mammals experience pain in a similar way to humans, because experimental work has demonstrated that the neural pathways of pain sensation are similar. Application of the ‘precautionary principle’, in which the clinician should err on the side of treating or preventing pain, would suggest that this is a safe assumption, unless strong experimental evidence proves otherwise."

The article goes on to describe methods of alleviating pain, which obviously suggests that cows are more than susceptible to pain in the first place. Do you really not accept that cows are capable of suffering?

 

[volatile]

I can well imagine that future generations will still eat flesh but will also consider our ways of obtaining that flesh quite barbaric. (For instance vat grown flesh is probably not that far from being practical.)

I am vegan, but I would gladly eat vat-grown meat.

 

[volatile]

Your statement demonstrates my point. You have adopted an ethical system that if you ate animal flesh you would be being hypocritical however as I showed it is perfectly possible to adopt a system in which the consumption of only certain types of animal flesh does not result in hypocrisy. It all depends on the starting premises someone uses.

Sure. But I don't think my starting premises are particularly unusual, as evidenced in this thread (RandFan and Paximperium and I seem to share similar starting hypotheses, for example), by the points Teek made and by the existence of legal frameworks which outlaw egregious harm towards animals.

That's my point really. I think that in general, we're hypocritical about food. Not everyone is. Ted Nugent sure isn't. Teek isn't. But I was. And, if you'll permit me to be blunt, I think it's legitimate to say that I think RandFan and PaxImperium are. Modern Western society in general is. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Darat]

I am vegan, but I would gladly eat vat-grown meat.

I assumed given your stance and how you got there you would.

 

[tkingdoll]

There are worse things than dying.

There are worse things than dying, yes, but I don't think many sheep have come to that conclusion.

Do you really see no distinction between killing an animal humanely and causing an animal pointless suffering?

I never said that. But the current system is a bit of a facade, especially in factory farming. If the suffering adds nothing, then it is pointless. But what about foie gras, which can only be produced through suffering? It would be better if there was a way of producing the same product without the suffering, but if there isn't, should we not produce it at all?

I buy meat because I like the taste, and no other reason. I can afford a healthy vegetarian diet, but I choose to eat meat for selfish reasons, and that means I should admit I don't care if an animal dies. If I don't care if it dies, I'm not going to pretend I do care if it suffers. I don't. I have no feelings about meat-producing animals whatsoever. But that's not the same as thinking it should suffer for no reason, which you seem to think is what I'm saying. Meat production involves animal suffering, whether that's "you're going to die after a nice life" or "you're going to die after a crappy life". I can't claim I care if an animal suffers but don't care if it dies. It's better to produce meat with a minimum of suffering to the animal, sure.

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?

I never said anything about the morals of 'torturing' animals. Why would I endorse that? It's pointless. Define torture, though. The life of a 'free range' hen is a shade better than the life of a battery hen, but not a massive amount. It would still be a crappy life for a human. I have no idea if it's a crappy life for a hen. I doubt the hen has much idea either (and certainly no frame of reference). We use animals as commodities but make ourselves feel better by treating some of them nicer than others then charging a premium for it. That's the current system and those who can afford to pretend to care get to buy free range.

Yes, I think it's better to have basic standards, and I never said otherwise. But I maintain that if a person actually cared about the welfare of an individual animal, that would stretch as far as "oh god, don't kill it just so I can have a tasty steak!". But it doesn't for many people. For some, it does, and we call them 'vegetarians'. Weirdly, when I care about something, I don't want it to suffer or die. I have no problem with introducing basic standards of animal welfare into farming. I have a problem with people who claim to care about 'animal rights' when they're chowing down on something that just died.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

That's my point really. I think that in general, we're hypocritical about food. Not everyone is. Ted Nugent sure isn't. Teek isn't. But I was. And, if you'll permit me to be blunt, I think it's legitimate to say that I think RandFan and PaxImperium are. Modern Western society in general is. Wouldn't you agree?

Hypocritical is not the word I would use "unthinking" is how I would put it.

 

[volatile]

Hypocritical is not the word I would use "unthinking" is how I would put it.

I agree. That is much closer to the point I was trying to make. Thank you.


ETA: I don't think RandFan is "unthinking", actually. He's thought about his diet and come to a conclusion that I find has a little unresolved tension in it. It was probably still too strong to call that tension "hypocrisy", though, so I retract that wholeheartedly.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Weirdly, when I care about something, I don't want it to suffer or die.

...snip...

Euthanasia for a pet would seem to be ruled out by this reasoning but I doubt you would want a loved pet to suffer?

I do not think there is such a clear dilemma (or as volatile puts it hypocrisy) in wanting an animal to die so you can eat its flesh and not wanting it to suffer (or rather having limitations of what you find acceptable suffering).

 

[Darat]

I agree. That is much closer to the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

Slightly off-topic: food isn't the exception in this. I think most of us most of the time are "unthinking" about much of our everyday lives.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Yet self-described "animal lovers" pamper their cats and dogs to a comical extent while blissfully dining on murder.

I for one am tired of this canard that vegetarians/vegans are somehow more moral when it comes to what is on their plate.

Let's not forget that any type of food production will come at a cost to animals (re: collateral deaths). One may not have flesh on their plates, but those veggies and non-animals products come at a cost to animal lives (maybe not a cow, chicken or pig - but animals die none-the-less). You want to reduce animal suffering? Buy not only produce locally grown but also locally produced beef, chicken and pork (farms that you can actually see). Or better still - hunt. I have a garden - the veggies from my garden do not involve animal deaths (maybe earthworms) - but no mice, goffers, snakes, etc. died for my garden. I do not use any mechanical devices in my garden - nor any *cides.

Before one starts casting stones on how moral one thinks their diet is - find out how it's produced first - how far it had to travel to get onto your plate. I live in farming area - those huge combines/harvesters kill loads field animals/birds - not to mention the *cides put on crops. I also see the cows in the fields. Cows grazing on land that is no good for crops. Hell - my neighbours cows routinely trot through my yard (much to my dismay - they put huge holes in my lawn).

I am for animal WELFARE.

 

[volatile]

Slightly off-topic: food isn't the exception in this. I think most of us most of the time are "unthinking" about much of our everyday lives.

Oh, definitely. The same goes for so much, including things like sweatshop labour. As I came to scepticism, I began to look at all aspects of my life and approach them as "thinkingly" as possible, and I try (though of course not always succeed) to think about everything I do. I hope others (especially those on this board) try and do the same...

Is it just me, or is this the most polite thread ever?