Admit it, you believe in animal rights.

[Cain]

Again, we come to what I think is not only the core of your argument, but the impetus for the thread. You're so quick to jump down the throats of the "self-righteous meat-eaters" that you're willing to engage in the same style of flawed argument-- absolutism, then dodge back to semanticism, then flame-on, rinse, repeat--and you miss an opportunity to actually provide any real information backing up your lifestyle, instead aiming for the moral indignation and implied offense at the thought of the alternative. How dare they, huh?

I see, so you do not actually have anything resembling a relevant comment here, let alone supporting evidence. OK...

As for your list of arguments, I think they are secondary, apart from the beginning of the last one. It's no great surprise you ignore questions and arguments in favor of yet another digression. I would have liked a definition for "absolutism," but it's a term you would prefer to abuse.

There we go. That's some pretty well-rounded and inclusive reasoning to make the case for reducing or eliminating meat from one's diet. It includes more than one perspective, and consistently points out that there are also health benefits. They aren't absolute and at least some are open for debate on details or degrees, but overall it's a pretty well-rounded and well-moderated approach to the topic.

It's more like saying, "give up religion, and you'll get Sundays all to yourself." The primary difference between you and me is that you're interested in fashioning yourself as some holy moderate condemning the "extremist," "violent/radical," "fundamentalists," which is just a silly framing device masquerading as an argument.

Would you accept your same approach for slavery? "Well, it's bad, but not absolutely bad. The health and well-being of slaves has increased tremendously over the last century. The South's economy is based on this institution, and if we were to outlaw it, guess who would suffer most? That's right -- former slaves."

But you don't take this approach, Cain. Instead, you focus solely on moral indignation and outrage, as if they make a complete and reasonable argument all on their own.

Not really. There are certainly remarks to that effect, I suppose, but those only tend to come to the fore as general commentary in the absence of opponents' counter-arguments. You want to deal with more personality issues while I'm trying to get to the, uh, nut-meat (TM Stephen Colbert).

You argue repeatedly that it's a moral issue, when the morals themselves are simply not absolute. Morals are definitely not based solely on logic, not even your own, and yet you demand over and over that someone provide you with a completely logic-based argument to an alternative moral view. You keep asking that these morals be explained in such a way that they are convincing to you, yet you've clearly made up your mind from the beginning that it's wrong anyway.

and here's a relevant quote from below:

You're the one being absolutist about it, and you're the one arguing that the eating of meat is morally indefensible.

You keep insisting morals are not absolute without ever defining what absolute is. Do you make this same type of argument against dog-fighting? Do you think people who want to outlaw dogfighting are "moral absolutists"? Do you castigate people for claiming dog-fighting is "morally indefensible?" If not, then what's the difference -- except that I have not called for outlawing meat. Except that I have eaten meat whereas most people have never seen a dogfight. Except that I DO, in fact, think it's OK to eat meat (see posts on dumpster diving, road kill, growing meat in a lab, eating animals who die of old age). You refuse to define absolute because then it becomes a term that I can use, one that has limits and clear meaning.

A distinction needs to be made again: a person, or most people, probably have a morality based largely on sentiments, sentiments that are the product of their own genetic dispositions and socialization. Fine. That does not mean those sentiments make any sense. In some given culture animals X and Y (or HUMANS X and Y) could be elevated above other animals. Someone should ask how and why that status is merited.

I also wonder if you accept your own line of argument with regards to gay rights. "Oh, you keep in insisting on some 'morally relevant, significant difference' between homos and normal people, but what you have to realize is that morality is not all 'logic.' That's not how it works in the real world."

You think eating meat is murder (you said so yourself), and your rationalization of this thinking is that wanting to reduce or minimize suffering or harm to animals leads inexorably to not eating meant. Great. Now all you have to do is either accept that not everyone makes that moral decision because of different interpretations on the moral value of eating meat, or you can explain to us why we should all do the same as you.

I think this has been explained, not more than once, but more than a dozen times. See especially Volatile's posts. And it's not about being like me, Cain -- that's just another desperate attempt to personalize the issue.

Since pets came up, you may also want to include what we do about our pets' diets, since their food primarily comes from the same industries that produce our meats and most of them pretty much require that high protein diet from eating meat.

I did once regret not having a cat because they are notoriously picky meat-eaters and vegan "pet"-food did not sound like a sure bet. I have hardly investigated the options available though.

But you haven't even argued sufficiently for your original premise [allegedly what? Not eating meat?], because you're still demanding that everyone defines the criteria for what constitutes unnecessary, harmful, or morally wrong regarding animals is the same. Yes, in general people agree that torturing an animal isn't a good thing, but you haven't borne that broad generalization out into the specific argument that it logically leads to not eating meat. Instead, you're placing values on the validity of criteria and expecting everyone to agree.

First, stop lazily tossing around the term "premise." You do this again and again and again, and it's worse than eating Cheetos with your mouth open and then sucking your fingers one at a time. Ahem, anyway, I think it takes willful ignorance to miss the connections, but in your case I might make an exception. Torture was used as an example in order to demonstrate our moral consideration for the interests of animals. If we take those moral considerations seriously, the argument goes, then we probably should not subject animals to the conditions of the modern, industrial factory farm for our own trivial reason, which is that we like the taste. For those who even bother to follow the argument this far, there has been virtually no defense over how we actually raise "livestock." Instead the argument has shifted to almost utopian forms of meat consumption -- "free range" -- and the transition has always had a clear moral dimension: it's better for the animals (which runs contrary to the spirit of your above bullet points). Why haven't people argued for free range primarily on the grounds that it "tastes better and is better for you"? Well, obviously, because if that's the major argument people will counter, "Nah, what I have is good enough, thank you very much."

The reality is that morals are relative, people have different views on what constitutes necessity, cruelty, and reason (among others). People who prefer peace may still join the military or learn to fight because they see it as appropriate, necessary, or in some cases their definition of what constitutes peace may be considerably different. The decision whether or not to speed on the highway, which has implications that go beyond the lawlessness and into the morality of risking your life and the lives of others, is a common example of the fluidity of these moral boundaries people have. The fact that you continue to consider them hypocrisies or moral flaws is evidence enough that you're taking a morally absolute and fundamentalist stance on the topic, regardless of your protestations to the contrary.

You keep making assertions that would lead a reader to infer things about my position that are not true. One respect, this is heartening: you must resort to distorting my position. At the same time, it's tiring because it usually means I have to repeat what I have said. Saying "morals are relative" in above sense is almost meaningless. Yes, there is variation on what people believe. It's possible for two utilitarians both committed to animal liberation to have different views on animal testing. One might believe that it is necessary and not so cruel, while the other strongly disagrees. The argument goes to internal consistency, not different boundaries. Once boundaries are set, a person can be held into account by their own moral standards. As I said, the argument in the original post would not work on certain so-called "libertarians" (e.g., Alex Libman) because he does not even think it's wrong to torture animals. It still seems as though this basic point is beyond your comprehension.

 

[GreNME]

Again, we come to what I think is not only the core of your argument, but the impetus for the thread. You're so quick to jump down the throats of the "self-righteous meat-eaters" that you're willing to engage in the same style of flawed argument-- absolutism, then dodge back to semanticism, then flame-on, rinse, repeat--and you miss an opportunity to actually provide any real information backing up your lifestyle, instead aiming for the moral indignation and implied offense at the thought of the alternative. How dare they, huh?

I see, so you do not actually have anything resembling a relevant comment here, let alone supporting evidence. OK...

As for your list of arguments, I think they are secondary, apart from the beginning of the last one. It's no great surprise you ignore questions and arguments in favor of yet another digression. I would have liked a definition for "absolutism," but it's a term you would prefer to abuse.

I'm not your dictionary. I'm explaining what you're doing. The reason your arguments are absolutist are because you draw an arbitrary line between what you feel is acceptable and not acceptable and you offer no real logical argument to support it. Instead, you continue to bang on the morality drum when it's already been pointed out to you that morality is relative and your attempts to argue from a fixed point on the matter are falling in on themselves.

Put simply: there is no specific point at which you've specified how what you are calling immoral, hypocritical, wrong or choose-your-word actually is immoral, and you instead rely on your loaded "speciesist" designation to take up the slack-- once again, without actually presenting a realistic definition of the idea that isn't in itself absolutist.

It's more like saying, "give up religion, and you'll get Sundays all to yourself." The primary difference between you and me is that you're interested in fashioning yourself as some holy moderate condemning the "extremist," "violent/radical," "fundamentalists," which is just a silly framing device masquerading as an argument.

Yet your arguments amount to "go to church on Sunday because it's moral and that's what morally consistent people do." When it gets pointed out to you that there are people who do the whole part-time vegetarian diet, you even go so far as to pull a classic "no true scotsman" argument out and dust it off (another indicator of a case of the absolutes).

Would you accept your same approach for slavery? "Well, it's bad, but not absolutely bad. The health and well-being of slaves has increased tremendously over the last century. The South's economy is based on this institution, and if we were to outlaw it, guess who would suffer most? That's right -- former slaves."

Human slavery is not the same as what humans do to non-human animals. You've already admitted that even non-human great apes can't necessarily count as moral agents on their own (I believe the word you used was "moral patients"), while human slavery was an act of taking other moral agents and blatantly ignoring that for the benefits. I would agree that what humans do to some non-human animals can be called exploitation, but all of this demanding to be the one defining the conversation by you is getting old and I wish you would simply recognize that your proposed moral argument is not applicable across the board.

But you don't take this approach, Cain. Instead, you focus solely on moral indignation and outrage, as if they make a complete and reasonable argument all on their own.

Not really. There are certainly remarks to that effect, I suppose, but those only tend to come to the fore as general commentary in the absence of opponents' counter-arguments. You want to deal with more personality issues while I'm trying to get to the, uh, nut-meat (TM Stephen Colbert).

Well, like Colbert you're certainly emulating O'Reilly pretty faithfully-- insults and all. The difference is that Colbert is funny.

I and others have already tried to deal with the issues with you, but you refuse to accept the relativity of the moral argument. At this point you're just trying to bludgeon your point through instead of actually having discussion.

You argue repeatedly that it's a moral issue, when the morals themselves are simply not absolute. Morals are definitely not based solely on logic, not even your own, and yet you demand over and over that someone provide you with a completely logic-based argument to an alternative moral view. You keep asking that these morals be explained in such a way that they are convincing to you, yet you've clearly made up your mind from the beginning that it's wrong anyway.

and here's a relevant quote from below:

You're the one being absolutist about it, and you're the one arguing that the eating of meat is morally indefensible.

You keep insisting morals are not absolute without ever defining what absolute is.

Yes I have, you just refuse to accept it. "Nuh uh" is not a valid argument from you.

Do you make this same type of argument against dog-fighting? Do you think people who want to outlaw dogfighting are "moral absolutists"? Do you castigate people for claiming dog-fighting is "morally indefensible?"

No, I castigate people for dog fighting because it's stupid, childish, and abusive toward an animal. I also castigate the meat industry for letting its practices get the way they have. I don't demand they defend their practices morally because there are better, more effective arguments than playing a moral outrage game. You, however, don't seem to feel like considering that.

Except that I DO, in fact, think it's OK to eat meat (see posts on dumpster diving, road kill, growing meat in a lab, eating animals who die of old age). You refuse to define absolute because then it becomes a term that I can use, one that has limits and clear meaning.

You see that arbitrary line you drew right there? That's what I mean by absolute-- you'll pretend it's okay as long as it falls under the conditions you set forth that obviously refuse to count hunting, livestock, or other more reality-based methods. Interestingly, you do the same thing PETA does with its ridiculously improbable "prize" for growing meat, where even if by some miracle someone came up with the methodology to put it into practice tomorrow it still wouldn't make it to market in time to qualify. Do you (practice my favorite example of this kind of nonsense and) also tell homosexuals that it's okay for them to get married as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex?

A distinction needs to be made again: a person, or most people, probably have a morality based largely on sentiments, sentiments that are the product of their own genetic dispositions and socialization. Fine. That does not mean those sentiments make any sense. In some given culture animals X and Y (or HUMANS X and Y) could be elevated above other animals. Someone should ask how and why that status is merited.

Why "should" someone? And who "should" ask? What is the goal of asking?

I also wonder if you accept your own line of argument with regards to gay rights. "Oh, you keep in insisting on some 'morally relevant, significant difference' between homos and normal people, but what you have to realize is that morality is not all 'logic.' That's not how it works in the real world."

More attempts to humanize the topic. Again, I don't need to drop down to the level of weak moralizing arguments for rights for homosexuals, because on pretty much every other level homosexuality is a perfectly naturally-occurring behavior in sexuality, and the only people denying gays rights are moral absolutists.

You think eating meat is murder (you said so yourself), and your rationalization of this thinking is that wanting to reduce or minimize suffering or harm to animals leads inexorably to not eating meant. Great. Now all you have to do is either accept that not everyone makes that moral decision because of different interpretations on the moral value of eating meat, or you can explain to us why we should all do the same as you.

I think this has been explained, not more than once, but more than a dozen times. See especially Volatile's posts. And it's not about being like me, Cain -- that's just another desperate attempt to personalize the issue.

Well, despite what you think, I don't think it has. So, if the purpose of this thread was to convince you then I guess we can call it over and done with. However, if you had some other goal, like actually having an argument or a discussion or making an intellectually honest case, then you're currently falling way short.

I did once regret not having a cat because they are notoriously picky meat-eaters and vegan "pet"-food did not sound like a sure bet. I have hardly investigated the options available though.

"Vegan" pet food, interestingly enough, is a concept I find to be abusive toward the animals whose bodies rely specifically on the meat proteins. This is why you can't feed a cat dog food, for instance-- they'll starve from malnutrition, even with a full belly. Cats and dogs don't digest most of the contents of plants because their systems aren't capable of breaking the solids down.

First, stop lazily tossing around the term "premise." You do this again and again and again, and it's worse than eating Cheetos with your mouth open and then sucking your fingers one at a time. Ahem, anyway, I think it takes willful ignorance to miss the connections, but in your case I might make an exception. Torture was used as an example in order to demonstrate our moral consideration for the interests of animals. If we take those moral considerations seriously, the argument goes, then we probably should not subject animals to the conditions of the modern, industrial factory farm for our own trivial reason, which is that we like the taste. For those who even bother to follow the argument this far, there has been virtually no defense over how we actually raise "livestock." Instead the argument has shifted to almost utopian forms of meat consumption -- "free range" -- and the transition has always had a clear moral dimension: it's better for the animals (which runs contrary to the spirit of your above bullet points). Why haven't people argued for free range primarily on the grounds that it "tastes better and is better for you"? Well, obviously, because if that's the major argument people will counter, "Nah, what I have is good enough, thank you very much."

Ahh, more insults followed by another red herring attempt. You're the one claiming it has a "clear moral dimension" in this case. You seem to be incapable of understanding that someone can have a problem with current conditions in the meat industry but still not have a problem with using livestock for meat. If it helps, here's a scenario where people can agree to a degree on a matter but still disagree about the overall issue: there are people other 9/11 truthers who are highly critical of the Bush administration and consider them deceitful, wrong, and in some cases even criminal, but such people by a large majority still think that the truther claims of "inside job" are nonsense and plainly don't agree. You see, (some people here and) I are practically agreeing that there are problems with the conditions in the meat industry, but we're still of the opinion that the proposed "logical conclusion" you keep trying to pass off as objective-- or established in any manner than in your subjective (and relative) moral opinion-- isn't sound.

You keep making assertions that would lead a reader to infer things about my position that are not true. One respect, this is heartening: you must resort to distorting my position. At the same time, it's tiring because it usually means I have to repeat what I have said. Saying "morals are relative" in above sense is almost meaningless. Yes, there is variation on what people believe. It's possible for two utilitarians both committed to animal liberation to have different views on animal testing. One might believe that it is necessary and not so cruel, while the other strongly disagrees. The argument goes to internal consistency, not different boundaries. Once boundaries are set, a person can be held into account by their own moral standards. As I said, the argument in the original post would not work on certain so-called "libertarians" (e.g., Alex Libman) because he does not even think it's wrong to torture animals. It still seems as though this basic point is beyond your comprehension.

That you keep asserting that there are logical consistencies (to which I disagree) is implying that there are boundaries, and each time you bring up comparisons like slavery you solidify that implication just a little bit more. You're ignoring nuance and the relativity of the situation at the loss of an effective argument. You keep trying to compare directly non-human animals with slaves and humans with slave-owners because otherwise your boundaries don't hold up.

For example: instead of using US slavery (but still sticking to US history for examples), I would say the issue is more similarly nuanced to that of the Jacksonian years of presidency. There are things that occurred during this time that could be argued as bad or even atrocious, while there are other things that happened that could be argued as beneficial for a nation just off what was sometimes called the Second Revolutionary War with the United States in a far more tenuous standing than it was the first time around. You could argue that Jackson was morally wrong, and it's not like you'd get a whole lot of argument from me (I have no love for the guy), but to try to paint the era of US politics and political history as if it were atrocious would be missing the point, even if you attempted to caveat it with allowances for the benefits or westward expansion. However, unlike what you have done I'm not trying to place non-human animals into the rhetorical role of the Native Americans of that time, nor am I placing humans in the role of Americans of that time-- that would be a ludicrous comparison because, once again, it's trying to provide a qualitative argument for rhetorical apple trees by using rhetorical mushrooms, which is precisely the kinds of comparisons you keep trying to use to draw some emotional points instead of supplying reasoned explanations.

No, it's not about you personally, and that's kind of my point-- it's your argument, and you're the one who made it. You're the one claiming morally objective criteria here when there is no such thing. You try to use more realistic examples of moral ideas to lead to your "logical conclusion" of morally objective criteria, but you do it through equivocation and attempts to compare unlike factors in a like fashion (sort of redundant, but twists on the same concept). Until we find a way to come to an understanding on the "morality is relative, especially in these types of degree-based situations" the discussion really isn't going to get much further because you're so eager to claim your conclusion as fact before you support it.

 

[volatile]

That's what I mean by absolute-- you'll pretend it's okay as long as it falls under the conditions you set forth

Pretend? Pretend? That it's OK with the conditions he set forth is entirely the point of his argument. He said as much in the post you're responding to when he said "Once boundaries are set, a person can be held into account by their own moral standards".

The setting of conditions and up-holding them in a coherent manner is exactly what we've been explaining to you. I'm really surprised you came out with that sentence I quoted above, as it suggests that you haven't been following the argument at all!

 

[GreNME]

Pretend? Pretend? That it's OK with the conditions he set forth is entirely the point of his argument. He said as much in the post you're responding to when he said "Once boundaries are set, a person can be held into account by their own moral standards".

Yes. Hence the moral absolutism. Now all he has to do is explain how it applies to everyone but him.

The setting of conditions and up-holding them in a coherent manner is exactly what we've been explaining to you. I'm really surprised you came out with that sentence I quoted above, as it suggests that you haven't been following the argument at all!

Do you realize how old this is getting? How many times do I have to point out that the absolutism is precisely what I'm taking issue with? What you described is precisely what I'm having a problem with because it doesn't fly with moral relativism. If he was saying "I believe that..." I wouldn't have even chimed in, but instead he's arguing that it simply is from a moral standpoint. Coming up with ridiculous caveats doesn't change that (again, as I already pointed out).

Are you guys now just skimming my posts for something to twist in such a way that you can ignore my point and try to play "gotcha!" games or something? Trust me, I understand the argument. However, I think it's not only a weak argument, but it's also not applicable to people who don't have the same system of value judgment on the matter. I not only pointed out that there are better arguments, I listed some for you.

Volatile, can you really not see what I was saying?

 

[volatile]

Yes. Hence the moral absolutism. Now all he has to do is explain how it applies to everyone but him.

What definition of the word "absolutism" are you using? Cain and I have both stated that there is nothing absolutely wrong with eating animals, and that eating animals (and animal harm) can indeed justified if the circumstances are appropriate.

That's the opposite of absolutism.

Do you realize how old this is getting? How many times do I have to point out that the absolutism is precisely what I'm taking issue with?

Once, would be nice. All you've done recently is point out that "not everyone thinks the same as you do", which is obvious simply through the fact that we're having a discussion. That people disagree with us is not, in itself, a de facto justification for the logic of that disagreement.

There still has not been one single coherent explanation as to why eating animals is not inconsistent with a general commitment to reduce harming them. Not a single one. If your position now is that our argument is weak simply because not everyone agrees with us, then this conversation is entering some very strange territory.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What definition of the word "absolutism" are you using? Cain and I have both stated that there is nothing absolutely wrong with eating animals, and that eating animals (and animal harm) can indeed justified if the circumstances are appropriate.

Eating meat doesn't require justification, and your appropriate gambit is a repeat of what just went before. You just applied an arbitraty judgment.

Not sure what mileage you expect to get from that gas.

DR

 

[Princess]

Pretend? Pretend? That it's OK with the conditions he set forth is entirely the point of his argument. He said as much in the post you're responding to when he said "Once boundaries are set, a person can be held into account by their own moral standards".

Yes. Hence the moral absolutism. Now all he has to do is explain how it applies to everyone but him.

Either you're using the word "absolutism" in a way that I've never heard before, or you completely missed the point.

I've followed every post in this thread from the beginning, and Cain has consistently said that he wants people to be consistent with their own principles, not his. Cain hasn't uttered a word about moral absolutism, only insisting that people should be morally consistent.

(Whether or not the requirement that morals should be consistent counts as moral absolutism or not depends on your definition, but I'll leave it as a moot point for now.)

Cain's argument is that the principles people use to account for human rights are inclusive to mentally similar animals --- its debatable whether he has actually shown this to be the case or not, but this is essentially his argument.

From there, an argument can be made that, in the interest of moral consistency, we should consider take animals interests seriously animals in our moral decisions.

That's basically the animal rights argument in a nutshell. It doesn't require the assumption that morality is objective or absolute, it only requires that people take their own principles to their logical ends.

Yes, there are ancillary arguments for veganism, such as it being healthy, better for the environment, etc., but those are moot points. Arguments that say "humans would be better off if they did X rather than Y" put humans in the center of the moral universe, which I'm afraid to say completely misses the point of animal rights altogether. AR activists focus on arguments that attempt to show that animals matter to the same degree as mentally similar humans, and that they are better off when we protect them from cruelty.


With that in mind, I'd personally be interested to hear why you think human life is valuable in general. I'm at least interested to find out whether your principles are consistent.



Dark Rotor,

Eating meat doesn't require justification

Two can play at that game: human vivisections is permissible and does not require justification.

 

[volatile]

Eating meat doesn't require justification, and your appropriate gambit is a repeat of what just went before. You just applied an arbitraty judgment.

Why doesn't it require justification?

 

[applecorped]

No animal behaviour requires justification. Including homo sapien.

 

[Cain]

I'm not your dictionary. I'm explaining what you're doing. The reason your arguments are absolutist are because you draw an arbitrary line between what you feel is acceptable and not acceptable and you offer no real logical argument to support it. Instead, you continue to bang on the morality drum when it's already been pointed out to you that morality is relative and your attempts to argue from a fixed point on the matter are falling in on themselves.

Put simply: there is no specific point at which you've specified how what you are calling immoral, hypocritical, wrong or choose-your-word actually is immoral, and you instead rely on your loaded "speciesist" designation to take up the slack-- once again, without actually presenting a realistic definition of the idea that isn't in itself absolutist.

This is yet another clumsy evasion, distinguished only by its uniquely comical ineptitude. Given a direct question you essentially say, "absolute is whatever I say it is." You have even gone to describing speciesist as absolutist, whatever that means. I'll also say there's a difference between asserting (or "point[ing] out") morality is relative and substantively arguing morality is relative. It also rather misses the point of the central argument, one that does not rest upon some "fixed point" but subjects a given morality to its own standards of scrutiny. But this has already been covered by me several times, and it's pointed out above by both Volatile and Princess.

Yet your arguments amount to "go to church on Sunday because it's moral and that's what morally consistent people do." When it gets pointed out to you that there are people who do the whole part-time vegetarian diet, you even go so far as to pull a classic "no true scotsman" argument out and dust it off (another indicator of a case of the absolutes).

All you have shown here is that you do not have the slightest clue what the no true Scotsman fallacy entails. Again, when I accuse others of flawed reasoning, I point out how and why it's flawed. You instead bring up things that went uncommented upon days earlier and then never bother to say how it instantiates some alleged fallacy.

Human slavery is not the same as what humans do to non-human animals. You've already admitted that even non-human great apes can't necessarily count as moral agents on their own (I believe the word you used was "moral patients"), while human slavery was an act of taking other moral agents and blatantly ignoring that for the benefits. I would agree that what humans do to some non-human animals can be called exploitation, but all of this demanding to be the one defining the conversation by you is getting old and I wish you would simply recognize that your proposed moral argument is not applicable across the board.

First, I never said they were the same; I am trying to understand what the hell you mean by moral absolutism (no, you do not get extra credit for confusing more than two issues at once). Second, "moral patients" consists of two words, not one. Third, you're now returning to your previously abandoned moral agency argument while also going off on misguided human/non-human non-distinctions. This is all and well and good, I suppose, but again you're failing to grasp the most direct connection, which is getting to what moral absolutism means; teh aminals were a distant consideration to my comment on slavery. But why would you even bother to try to place it in context? The comparison you think I am making... I am not making, but this is hardly the first time you have jumped to a conclusion.

Yes I have [provided a definition for moral absolutism, you just refuse to accept it. "Nuh uh" is not a valid argument from you.

Where did you define it, and where did I respond as you claim I did?

No, I castigate people for dog fighting because it's stupid, childish, and abusive toward an animal. I also castigate the meat industry for letting its practices get the way they have. I don't demand they defend their practices morally because there are better, more effective arguments than playing a moral outrage game. You, however, don't seem to feel like considering that.

Ah... yes, it's childish and stupid. That works for dogfighting almost as well as it works for video games. You also refused to answer rather simple questions, so I guess I'll have to repeat: Do you think people who want to outlaw dogfighting are "moral absolutists"? Do you castigate people for claiming dog-fighting is "morally indefensible?"

You see that arbitrary line you drew right there? That's what I mean by absolute-- you'll pretend it's okay as long as it falls under the conditions you set forth that obviously refuse to count hunting, livestock, or other more reality-based methods. Interestingly, you do the same thing PETA does with its ridiculously improbable "prize" for growing meat, where even if by some miracle someone came up with the methodology to put it into practice tomorrow it still wouldn't make it to market in time to qualify. Do you (practice my favorite example of this kind of nonsense and) also tell homosexuals that it's okay for them to get married as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex?

This is rich. You're saying that what you mean by absolute is evidenced by the fact that there circumstances under which I think it's OK to eat meat?? Do you have any idea what "absolute" means? And if for a second I thought "absolute" had something to do with a vaguely virtuous moral consistency, you put that idea away at the beginning, where you claim an arbitrary line. How that line is arbitrary you never say (of course). I do not believe I have ever told homosexuals they can freely marry people of the opposite sex, which is something they already know and already do. I am pretty sure that if I had said there are absolutely no circumstances under which it's OK to eat meat, you would accuse me of moral absolutism. Not that I have said what I have long maintained, that it is OK to eat meat, under certain conditions, you still accuse me of moral absolutism -- and indeed these exceptions somehow demonstrate absolutism.

Some of you people are getting increasingly unhinged. Darth Rotor with his whole humans do not need a justification to eat meat to Applecorps we do not need a justification for any human behavior.

Why "should" someone?

Because we should not take things at face value.

And who "should" ask?

That was directed at the reader of my post.

What is the goal of asking?

Being independent-minded; see also answer to the first question immediately above.

More attempts to humanize the topic. Again, I don't need to drop down to the level of weak moralizing arguments for rights for homosexuals, because on pretty much every other level homosexuality is a perfectly naturally-occurring behavior in sexuality, and the only people denying gays rights are moral absolutists.

No, again, that is connected to "absolutism."

Ahh, more insults followed by another red herring attempt.

This is another example of what I am talking about. In this instance you quote an entire paragraph, but presumably the end of this comment applies to something specific.

You're the one claiming it has a "clear moral dimension" in this case. You seem to be incapable of understanding that someone can have a problem with current conditions in the meat industry but still not have a problem with using livestock for meat.

Really? I don't understand that? So, I have no idea why prop. 2 (so far) enjoys popular support. And when I say "clear moral dimension," I'm merely describing what others have said:

For instance, here's the comment that actually got this ball rolling:

Fifth, that there are ways to humanely raise cattle; free range comes to mind.

If it helps, here's a scenario where people can agree to a degree on a matter but still disagree about the overall issue: there are people other 9/11 truthers who are highly critical of the Bush administration and consider them deceitful, wrong, and in some cases even criminal, but such people by a large majority still think that the truther claims of "inside job" are nonsense and plainly don't agree. You see, (some people here and) I are practically agreeing that there are problems with the conditions in the meat industry, but we're still of the opinion that the proposed "logical conclusion" you keep trying to pass off as objective-- or established in any manner than in your subjective (and relative) moral opinion-- isn't sound.

There are few posters who have written so much in order to say so little. You're um.... completely missing my argument.

That you keep asserting that there are logical consistencies (to which I disagree) is implying that there are boundaries, and each time you bring up comparisons like slavery you solidify that implication just a little bit more. You're ignoring nuance and the relativity of the situation at the loss of an effective argument. You keep trying to compare directly non-human animals with slaves and humans with slave-owners because otherwise your boundaries don't hold up.

For example: instead of using US slavery (but still sticking to US history for examples), I would say the issue is more similarly nuanced to that of the Jacksonian years of presidency. There are things that occurred during this time that could be argued as bad or even atrocious, while there are other things that happened that could be argued as beneficial for a nation just off what was sometimes called the Second Revolutionary War with the United States in a far more tenuous standing than it was the first time around. You could argue that Jackson was morally wrong, and it's not like you'd get a whole lot of argument from me (I have no love for the guy), but to try to paint the era of US politics and political history as if it were atrocious would be missing the point, even if you attempted to caveat it with allowances for the benefits or westward expansion. However, unlike what you have done I'm not trying to place non-human animals into the rhetorical role of the Native Americans of that time, nor am I placing humans in the role of Americans of that time-- that would be a ludicrous comparison because, once again, it's trying to provide a qualitative argument for rhetorical apple trees by using rhetorical mushrooms, which is precisely the kinds of comparisons you keep trying to use to draw some emotional points instead of supplying reasoned explanations.

Again, as noted earlier, you completely missed the point of the example of slavery, which was not used as a comparison for animal rights, but as a reference point for understanding what you mean by moral absolutism.

I snipped some comments, vegan pet food (not sure why you put vegan in scare quotes instead of food), the meandering last paragraph, and something else. You can't answer direct questions, follow basic arguments (regardless of how often they are rephrased, even by different people) and you adamantly refuse to define your terms (in this case absolutism). You're such a bore.

 

[Cain]

The argument in the first post raised the issue of why we privilege some forms of pleasure over others. It's OK to enjoy eating animals, but it's not OK to watch them fight. It's OK if they suffer on a farm far away, but if you harm them yourself, for the sheer pleasure of harming them, then you are doing something that it that potentially deserves prison time. I do not think anyone has even pretended to address the argument substantively, but I have seen a lot of sanctimonious hand-wringing and moral outrage about the ridiculousness of the comparison.

Idealized forms of meat-eating have come up, the kind that would have one believe animals are treated like nobility on "free range" farms. It has the word "free" it in so it must be good. I addressed these scenarios on their own terms, forgetting a memorable argument I have used in the past, the case of the hotel heiress.

So, there's a publicity savvy hotel heiress who has no recognizable talent other than partying until morning, dressing up, and being famous for being famous. Appearance matters. Her income and fame will drop if she packs on the pounds or is seen in an embarrassing get-up. As a minor fashion icon her most recognizable accessory is her chihuahua named Chino. Unfortunately, appearance matters for dogs too, and Chino has been getting heavy, which also makes him difficult to carry around while attending events, or running errands in town. The hotel heiress asks if any of her friends want to adopt Chino, but they already have animals of their own, so she has a vet put the dog down. The hotel heiress gets a new dog, but she finds that this one tends to get nervous around people, which is bad for the pup. Even worse, the new dog peed on her, which would have been disastrous had it happened a movie premiere. She has him put down. A couple weeks pass and the hotel heiress finds another dog; she immediately names him Chino and they get along famously... until she finds one who is even cuter. She has Chino put-down and replaces him with the new dog. Unfortunately, after a few more months the whole small-dog fad is over, and she sees no benefit for keeping the animal. The hotel heiress is reminded of the German Shepard she had growing up, and now begins to long for a larger companion, one she can take running, one who will help her at least feel protected. She buys a rottweiler from a reputable breeder, but finds the new dog and the latest incarnation of Chino do not get along so well together, so she has Chino put down (it was for his own good; the hotel heiress does not always think of herself). Unfortunately, the new dog does not get along well with humans either; she does not want to risk it biting someone -- not because it might hurt somebody, but because she's rich and famous, which means she will probably face a lawsuit. Therefore, she has the rottweiler put down.

Is the hotel heiress doing anything wrong? These dogs are pampered, treated better than most people and killed in the most humane manner known (certainly better than "livestock" at the slaughterhouse).

Her publicist GreNME is outraged.
G:"Honey, you gotta stop replacing these animals like handbags!"
HH: "Why?"
G: "Because you're KILLING... your image!"

 

[GreNME]

Okay, before I follow up...

Cain, Volatile, and Princess: do you believe that all non-human animals are the same type of moral agent as humans? If not, why not (and to what degree)? If so, please explain why as well.

 

[volatile]

Okay, before I follow up...

Cain, Volatile, and Princess: do you believe that all non-human animals are the same type of moral agent as humans? If not, why not (and to what degree)? If so, please explain why as well.

Why do you need to ask this? I have already answered that, no, non-human animals are not the same type of moral agents as humans.

This is entirely immaterial in regards to my argument, though. I don't understand why you're bringing it up again. Moral agency doesn't matter. We've already explained this over and over and over.

 

[volatile]

Is the hotel heiress doing anything wrong? These dogs are pampered, treated better than most people and killed in the most humane manner known (certainly better than "livestock" at the slaughterhouse).

Nominated. Another fantastic illustration of the key issues at stake here.

I'd be really interested to hear DogDoctor's take on this, actually, as his argument has essentially been framed in the terms you directly seek to address. I suspect he'd have serious qualms with being the veterinarian asked to carry out the euthanasia.

 

[volatile]

No animal behaviour requires justification. Including homo sapien.

I do not believe that you sincerely believe this is true.

 

[GreNME]

Why do you need to ask this? I have already answered that, no, non-human animals are not the same type of moral agents as humans.

This is entirely immaterial in regards to my argument, though. I don't understand why you're bringing it up again. Moral agency doesn't matter. We've already explained this over and over and over.

But you didn't answer my question. If you believe the answer is no, then please explain why, how, and to what degree you believe this.

Trust me, this is important to the reply I'm going to give. I've already tried to appeal to the fact that we're clearly talking past one another. Instead of continuing to do so, and in the attempt to try to frame what I'm saying in a manner you'll (hopefully) find more applicable to the argument, I'm going to need your interpretation of the language involved.

If you want this to be a conversation, then please answer the question. Otherwise, this isn't a conversation from my point of view and I no longer wish to be preached at.

 

[volatile]

But you didn't answer my question. If you believe the answer is no, then please explain why, how, and to what degree you believe this.

Trust me, this is important to the reply I'm going to give. I've already tried to appeal to the fact that we're clearly talking past one another. Instead of continuing to do so, and in the attempt to try to frame what I'm saying in a manner you'll (hopefully) find more applicable to the argument, I'm going to need your interpretation of the language involved.

If you want this to be a conversation, then please answer the question. Otherwise, this isn't a conversation from my point of view and I no longer wish to be preached at.

Is this some kind of trick? Moral agency is entirely immaterial to the arguments being presented, and we've all told you that over and over and over again.

If you insist, though: Why aren't animals the same category of moral agent?
There are a number of reasons, the principal one being that they are incapable of developing (or even being aware of) their own moral systems.

Why does this matter?

 

[DC]

There are a number of reasons, the principal one being that they are incapable of developing (or even being aware of) their own moral systems.

mmh do animals have no moral system? never thought about it. how do we know?

 

[volatile]

mmh do animals have no moral system? never thought about it. how do we know?

Morality (in the sense of moral agency) requires self-reflective reasoning skills no other animals possess. This lack of agency, however, does not legitimise harm.

 

[GreNME]

Oy vey.

Certain animals are, in fact, capable of reflective behaviors and reasoning, though to limited degrees (in comparison to humans, though remarkable in their own right). If we're going to have an honest discussion on the matter, this is important to the point that disagrees with the conclusion you, Cain, and Princess are putting across. It may not matter to your case, but it certainly matters in some opposing viewpoints.