Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[applecorped]

Well that one is flawed.

Yes, of course it is, it doesn't support your contention so it must be flawed.

 

[RandFan]

I guess this issue isn't going to go away quietly. I'll wade in for a bit. I'm a glutton. Besides, I'm tanned and rested.

I think we are all agreed that it's wrong to kill an animal simply for the pleasure of killing an animal. I'm not sure why exactly we all agree.

So, we would seem to agree that this is a moral truth, right? This seems like a good starting point for dissecting what it is exactly that a moral sense is and why we have one. I think it’s a good thing to question how we know what it is we believe to be true and why. Why should we assume that the premise (it’s wrong to kill an animal simply for pleasure) correct because we all agree at this time in and this culture? Doesn’t the premise make a number of unwarranted assumptions? Isn’t such a premise based on argument ad numerum?

I would propose that it is right to us because we evolved to have a genetic predisposition for certain moral sentiments and that coupled with an ever evolving zeitgeist has led us to think it wrong. Let’s face it, there have been times when it wasn’t considered wrong to kill animals simply for pleasure. It wasn’t that long ago that torturing animals for pleasure used to be a source of entertainment.

I would also posit that if you can’t make an argument that it is wrong absent evolutionary predispositions (empathy, compassion, and theory of mind, all natural) then you can’t state that it is wrong. Only that we believe that it is wrong based on our perceptions. In other words, if you strip away the natural there is no morality.

We need to get away from this default position that while morality is natural any considerations of nature as it relates to morality are spurious. Simply saying “I’m not sure why it’s true just that it is (paraphrased)” is to say nothing. If you don’t know why something that changes from one generation to the next is true then you don’t even know if it true.

 

[RandFan]

If that were the way all meat was provided, I actually might reconsider my choice to be a vegetarian. (Probably not, though. My decision isn't really based on the cruelty and suffering issue as much as it is on the killing itself--however humanely it might be handles.)

Let's be clear about what we are talking about. It's the killing of animals by humans that bothers you. If we could magically wave a wand and all animal husbandry would disappear (along with all of the animals) then animals would simply die of predation and the elements and while that would not necassarily be ok with you it wouldn't keep you awake at night. It's not the number of animals that die or even the percentage of animals that die. It's that humans kill animals. That is what offends your sensibilities.

 

[RandFan]

It's not the number of animals that die or even the percentage of animals that die. It's that humans kill animals. That is what offends your sensibilities.

A hypothetical. If instead of humans killing and eating animals we allowed predators to kill and eat them would that be copasetic with you?

 

[Cain]

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is worthwhile for post #124.

So, we would seem to agree that this is a moral truth, right? This seems like a good starting point for dissecting what it is exactly that a moral sense is and why we have one. I think it’s a good thing to question how we know what it is we believe to be true and why.

You seem to completely miss the context of my post. Here it is:

Yoink wrote:

I think we are all agreed--meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters alike--that killing animals simply because snuffing out a life gives you pleasure is wrong. But there's no parallel between the person who kills a dog because it's death per se "gives them pleasure" and the person who kills a cow because they want to eat its meat.

I wrote:
I think we are all agreed that it's wrong to kill an animal simply for the pleasure of killing an animal. I'm not sure why exactly we all agree. You're discriminating against different kinds of pleasure. What if someone derives greater pleasure from killing an animal than another person does in eating the same animal? What's the moral difference?

This time I added emphasis to "are," as in "we are all agreed" to further clarify.

Why should we assume that the premise (it’s wrong to kill an animal simply for pleasure) correct because we all agree at this time in and this culture? Doesn’t the premise make a number of unwarranted assumptions? Isn’t such a premise based on argument ad numerum?

I'm not suggesting that it's a good argument because we all agree. Rather, we can use this common ground to investigate our beliefs. The question is why we share that common ground, hence my follow-ups (omitted from your quote).

We need to get away from this default position that while morality is natural any considerations of nature as it relates to morality are spurious. Simply saying “I’m not sure why it’s true just that it is (paraphrased)” is to say nothing. If you don’t know why something that changes from one generation to the next is true then you don’t even know if it true.

You're misinterpreting me. Again. I'm saying that given meat-eaters' arguments, it's not clear they should agree.

I would propose that it is right to us because we evolved to have a genetic predisposition for certain moral sentiments and that coupled with an ever evolving zeitgeist has led us to think it wrong. Let’s face it, there have been times when it wasn’t considered wrong to kill animals simply for pleasure. It wasn’t that long ago that torturing animals for pleasure used to be a source of entertainment.

An evolving zeitgeist, of course! This is exactly where morality comes in, so that we can judge one time/place/culture against another.

I would also posit that if you can’t make an argument that it is wrong absent evolutionary predispositions (empathy, compassion, and theory of mind, all natural) then you can’t state that it is wrong. Only that we believe that it is wrong based on our perceptions. In other words, if you strip away the natural there is no morality.

The first sentence is not a model of clarity. Are you saying we must appeal to evolutionary biological predispositions? Evolution does not infuse in action with rightness or wrongness, but with fitness. It's an amoral process. Suppose we engineer a successor species -- one that's not only more analytical, but also more sensitive to others' mental states (regardless of species). Furthermore, it has a strong distaste for meat, so it's no surprise that these beings are essentially moral vegans. Does that mean the behavior of this new species is moral? Now suppose we engineer another species of great apes to enjoy harming animals? Does that mean they can describe their behavior as moral? When we are talking about moral agents, moral is moral regardless of species or hardwiring.

Another related problem is that when you advocate a species-relative morality, you cannot prevent that ethic from shading into an agent-relative morality. Some of us are hardwired differently than others. What about masochists who enjoy torturing animals?

In this thread and the other you have gone about addressing ethics/morality -- what we ought to do/believe -- in the wrong way. You want to get inside some generic human's skull and say "he's primed to believe this, this, and that," but morality is about striving toward detachment, neutrality -- the view from nowhere. Evolutionary psychology, social psychological research, is important because it raises awareness of our subtle biases. There's research showing that white people in America today are unconsciously biased against non-whites. That does not mean we embrace those biases as "evolutionary predispositions," "natural," the ruling "zeitgeist," or whatever. No, we understand that being cognizant of our biases will help us to overcome them. With regard to animals we have a huge bias -- speciesism.

P.S.
I'm also curious about another thing. Have you ever invoked evolutionary psychology to counter conservative/libertarian justifications for inequality of wealth and status? I mean, in this thread you're out-and-out speculating. At least in that domain you can make an argument that's actually backed up by scientific studies.

 

[Princess]

So, we would seem to agree that this is a moral truth, right? This seems like a good starting point for dissecting what it is exactly that a moral sense is and why we have one. I think it’s a good thing to question how we know what it is we believe to be true and why. Why should we assume that the premise (it’s wrong to kill an animal simply for pleasure) correct because we all agree at this time in and this culture? Doesn’t the premise make a number of unwarranted assumptions? Isn’t such a premise based on argument ad numerum?

I would propose that it is right to us because we evolved to have a genetic predisposition for certain moral sentiments and that coupled with an ever evolving zeitgeist has led us to think it wrong. Let’s face it, there have been times when it wasn’t considered wrong to kill animals simply for pleasure. It wasn’t that long ago that torturing animals for pleasure used to be a source of entertainment.

I would also posit that if you can’t make an argument that it is wrong absent evolutionary predispositions (empathy, compassion, and theory of mind, all natural) then you can’t state that it is wrong. Only that we believe that it is wrong based on our perceptions. In other words, if you strip away the natural there is no morality.

We need to get away from this default position that while morality is natural any considerations of nature as it relates to morality are spurious. Simply saying “I’m not sure why it’s true just that it is (paraphrased)” is to say nothing. If you don’t know why something that changes from one generation to the next is true then you don’t even know if it true.

Humanity also has a genetic predisposition toward religion and belief in gods, its only been in the last 150 years that secular moral theories have really started to develop. Does this mean that religious truths are suddenly more plausible, or does it mean that religious truths are culturally relative? Neither: religion is no more plausible then than it is now, and culturally relative religious truth is internally inconsistent because the truthfulness of facts doesn't depend on what any observers think about said facts. Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.

It turns out that moral attitudes change over time because most people are a product of their societies, and the principles they hold are a product of the times and places they live in. Nothing in principle says we can't hold the attitudes of people up to some measure of reason, plausibility, and consistency to see if it passes the smell test.

For a start, many people used to believe that humans had a special place in the center of the universe, that god gave them dominion over animals, and that animals have no souls and can't feel pain; it turns out that humans are not special, that there is no god, and animals' mental life is fundamentally no different from a humans mental life. Any moral claims derived from the belief in anthropocentricism, gods, or nonsense facts about animals are based on false premises, so the conclusions are worthless. What changed between now and the time when it torturing animals for entertainment was permissible? We just got smarter.

 

[RandFan]

Humanity also has a genetic predisposition toward religion and belief in gods, its only been in the last 150 years that secular moral theories have really started to develop. Does this mean that religious truths are suddenly more plausible, or does it mean that religious truths are culturally relative? Neither: religion is no more plausible then than it is now, and culturally relative religious truth is internally inconsistent because the truthfulness of facts doesn't depend on what any observers think about said facts. Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.

It turns out that moral attitudes change over time because most people are a product of their societies, and the principles they hold are a product of the times and places they live in. Nothing in principle says we can't hold the attitudes of people up to some measure of reason, plausibility, and consistency to see if it passes the smell test.

For a start, many people used to believe that humans had a special place in the center of the universe, that god gave them dominion over animals, and that animals have no souls and can't feel pain; it turns out that humans are not special, that there is no god, and animals' mental life is fundamentally no different from a humans mental life. Any moral claims derived from the belief in anthropocentricism, gods, or nonsense facts about animals are based on false premises, so the conclusions are worthless. What changed between now and the time when it torturing animals for entertainment was permissible? We just got smarter.

Thank you.

I agree that evolution is descriptive not proscriptive. I don't hold that any given behavior is right because it is evolved. That is not my position.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves and you are missing the point of my post.

Why is killing animals for pleasure wrong? You say we "got smarter". What did we learn that caused us to gain this moral truth? Your argument is a fallacy unless you can establish why killing animals for pleasure is wrong a priori.

What are your base premises? You can't simply assume or state that killing animals for pleasure is wrong. Why is it wrong?

One last thing, you seem to think that I'm just not getting it. I am I assure you. I understand your point. Crystal clear. Restating it over and over isn't helping. The problem I think is that you don't understand my point. I can't know unless you address the point that is so crucial to this discussion. Why is killing animals for pleasure wrong? How do you know it is wrong? What leads you to that conclusion?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

A hypothetical. If instead of humans killing and eating animals we allowed predators to kill and eat them would that be copasetic with you?

I've stated my position and reasoning earlier in this thread. It sounds like you haven't read my earlier posts.

No. . .that animals kill other animals doesn't bother me in the least (see my first post on this thread). That other animals kill animals has no bearing on my consideration of moral behavior for me. Other animals exhibit a lot of behaviors that would be considered immoral or at least extremely inappropriate if humans did them.

I wouldn't eat an animal killed by another animal (even if I could, which I find improbable at the best). I also wouldn't eat road kill.

Or are you talking about predators killing and eating cows that were freed because I didn't eat them? I've been a vegetarian for about 20 years--my not eating meat has not resulted in cows being turned loose to be killed by predators yet.

If you read my earlier posts, you would see that I am not telling you or anyone else not to eat meat.

 

[RandFan]

I've stated my position and reasoning earlier in this thread. It sounds like you haven't read my earlier posts.

This assumes I'm capable of error....



Fair enough.

 

[Princess]

Why is killing animals for pleasure wrong? You say we "got smarter". What did we learn that caused us to gain this moral truth? Your argument is a fallacy unless you can establish why killing animals for pleasure is wrong a priori.

Nothing is wrong a priori, not even murder (after all, would murder be so horrible if we had a machine that could instantly reverse death?).

Since it became obvious that humans are just a different type of animal, that we share a common ancestor, and have roughly the same mental experiences, we know that the belief in some large, insuperable metaphysical gap between humans and animals isn't based on anything. Animals have an experiential welfare, capacity to feel pain and pleasures, desires, and share in common a lot of important characteristics that usually affect our moral interactions with other humans, so they already exist in the moral community by virtue of having some morally relevant characteristics.

In a lot of ways, we can approach the question "why is it wrong to kill animals for pleasure" in the same way that we approach the question "why is it wrong to kill humans for pleasure". Taking two people, a potential murderer and a potential victim: the pleasure a murder gets from killing a victim is in conflict with a potential victim's desire to continue living. We have a moral conflict between two people, whose interests override the others?

I don't think there's any good way to resolve moral disputes like this, except in utilitarian terms:
- by permitting murder, murderers gain some pleasure, and the totality of all of the victims wants, desires, goals, continued happiness, etc are obliterated in the most absolute way possible.

- by preventing murder, murderers are slightly disappointed, but they're objective is pleasure which they can derive from anything (playing video games, sports, working out, fixing cars). A victim benefits for being free from fear, enjoying their continued existence, and being able to pursue their interests.

So, victims are harmed more profoundly for being murdered than potential murderers are harmed for not murdering; victims benefit to a much greater extent for enjoying their continued existence than murderers benefit for murdering. In the interests of maximizing the satisfaction and minimizing the harm of everyone involved, its best to prevent murder.

The same reasoning applies to animals: they benefit more for being left alone than I benefit for killing them; animals are harmed profoundly and irreversibly for torturing and killing them than I'm harmed for channeling my pleasure into petting animals and posting on the internet. It harms me not at all to abstain from killing animals. I think you'll agree with this much.

So, its wrong to kill animals for pleasure because, to put it in very simple terms, it harms them too much. You can approach the question from more than just a utilitarian angle, but most other approaches converge broadly on the same principles and conclusions.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Do you think that the species barrier doesn't exist?

Frankly, no. Plenty of diseases mutate and spread across species. Relatively few pathogens survive the inferno of stomach acid anyway. I listed a number of food borne pathogens earlier--you can look up what kinds of food those are carried on. None of them are limited to human flesh.

You just put yourself into a self defeating scenario. You assume the worst and make it permanent. If people ate a healthy amount of meat then the demand can be met.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm pointing out that current demand for meat (based on current meat eating practices--that is, eating meat with nearly every meal for most people) probably requires the feed lots and factory farms to supply that demand. I agree that if people at a healthy amount of meat (as long as you define "healthy amount" as only eating meat on occasion, or eating much less meat than people currently do--I add that because there are people who wouldn't define it that way), then the demand could be met without the factory farms and feed lots that lead to mistreatment of animals.

But they don't, so it can't.

Actually the content of meat is quite vital for our omnivore bodies. If you aren't going to eat meat you will need to find other sources. There isn't a single replacement for meat, and dietary supplements are often required.

If there are other sources, then it is not necessary to get those nutrients from meat. Who says there must be one single replacement? Even in a meat-eating diet, variety is much better.

I still have no interest in Bachelor Chow.

Poorly planned Veganism can lead to malnutrition and death.

So? Does the fact that using forethought change the morality of a decision?

I would say you overstate the case too. As for me, I've been vegetarian for 20 years. When I started off, I used to have to give it some thought. Nowadays, it's really not something that takes much of my attention.

Not that "easy" is the same thing as "moral" anyway. . .

Also most of humanity doesn't have access to adequate amount of replacements, dulling any arguments.

I doubt that that's true. Even if it is, how does that affect my decision to be a vegetarian?

Remember, I'm not trying to convert you or anyone else. A position I have stated several times now.

Wait a second--are you saying that killing and dying are morally equivalent since "Their [sic] both the end of life"? Really? If someone were to murder you in cold blood, it would be no crime because you were going to die anyway eventually?

In our discussion it doesn't matter. The importance of a good life is several orders greater then the need of a good death. Even a good death is relative.

It certainly matters to me. If I had answered the questions on this thread by saying my vegetarianism is based on objecting to death, then it wouldn't matter (and my position would be absurd). I clearly said it was killing.

There is a profound difference between killing and dying. The fact that all living things die doesn't say anything at all about killing.

Why do you think I'm trying to pass myself off as morally superior?

"I think most meat eaters don't have that moral axiom that I do."

Ah--so anyone who has different moral standards than you thinks they're superior?

Do you think anyone who disagrees with you on any moral issue thinks they're better than you?

Also, if you read the context of the partial sentence you quoted, you'd see that I wasn't setting myself up as superior. I was point out the difference in logical approaches.

In other words, I think most meat eaters don't have that moral axiom that I do, and start from meat-eating as a default position. For them, the question is, "Why is it wrong?" For me the question is, "Why is it justified?"--basically a different burden of proof. I'm fine with that. Reasonable minds can disagree on such things.

Yep--I actually said, "I'm fine with that. Reasonable minds can disagree on such things."

And you read that to mean that I think I'm morally superior?

I'm beginning to think maybe you're either not reading my posts or you're arguing dishonestly.

 

[RandFan]

Nothing is wrong a priori, not even murder (after all, would murder be so horrible if we had a machine that could instantly reverse death?).

Thank you. Very good post BTW.

Since it became obvious that humans are just a different type of animal, that we share a common ancestor, and have roughly the same mental experiences, we know that the belief in some large, insuperable metaphysical gap between humans and animals isn't based on anything.

"Roughly the same"? I think this is where the devil might be in the details. The differences that do exist might be significant. We can discuss that later. But let's give you this for the time being.

Animals have an experiential welfare, capacity to feel pain and pleasures, desires, and share in common a lot of important characteristics that usually affect our moral interactions with other humans, so they already exist in the moral community by virtue of having some morally relevant characteristics.

"moral community"? Seems a bit presumptive and arbitrary but I'm willing to let that slide for now. I'm willing to accept that animals have the capacity to feel pain and pleasure and desires. As for the rest I would say that there is a great diversity of abilities.

In a lot of ways, we can approach the question "why is it wrong to kill animals for pleasure" in the same way that we approach the question "why is it wrong to kill humans for pleasure". Taking two people, a potential murderer and a potential victim: the pleasure a murder gets from killing a victim is in conflict with a potential victim's desire to continue living. We have a moral conflict between two people, whose interests override the others?

Where does the desire to continue living come from? What is it's basis? Why is it important? IOW, so what?

In utilitarian terms:
- by permitting murder, murderers gain some pleasure, and the totality of all of the victims wants, desires, goals, continued happiness, etc are obliterated in the most absolute way possible.

Why is this wrong? Why should we care? What is the basis for caring?

- by preventing murder, murderers are slightly disappointed, but they're objective is pleasure which they can derive from anything (playing video games, sports, working out, fixing cars). A victim benefits for being free from fear, enjoying their continued existence, and being able to pursue their interests.

Presumptive.

So, victims are harmed more profoundly for being murdered than potential murderers are harmed for not murdering; victims benefit to a much greater extent for enjoying their continued existence than murderers benefit for murdering. In the interests of maximizing the satisfaction and minimizing the harm of everyone involved, its best to prevent murder.

From a utilitarian POV this is a great argument. I agree.

The same reasoning applies to animals: they benefit more for being left alone than I benefit for killing them...

This is where you go south. This is not true. The life of an animal left alone in the wild is exposure to the elements and predation. The vast majority of all animals are eaten alive shortly after birth. Animals who survive birth must spend their lives hungry and exposed to disease, the elements, starvation and predators. If you take an animal out of the wild because you intend to kill it for consumption you may very well treat it better than it would be treated in the wild. At the very least it's life expectancy would very likely be significantly greater than if it were left in the wild. Please compare infant mortality rates of animals in the wild and animals raised in captivity.

So, its wrong to kill animals for pleasure because, to put it in very simple terms, it harms them too much.

I've yet to see this established. On the contrary. I think animal husbandry gives to animals something that they can't have otherwise.

"How clever of wild sheep to have acquired that most versatile adaptation, the shepherd!" --Dennett (not meant to suggest that Dennet is justifying meat consumption).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually the content of meat is quite vital for our omnivore bodies.

Since you still can't get over the falsehood of thinking eating meat is necessary to a healthy diet, let's try this one.

Carbohydrates are an essential nutrient. You MUST ingest carbohydrates to stay alive.

Beer is high in carbohydrates. I can truthfully say, "Actually the content of beer is quite vital to our omnivore bodies."

Does that mean that drinking beer is necessary or better than getting carbohydrates elsewhere?

I've been a vegetarian for about 20 years, and I'm in excellent health. I attribute my health to lots of exercise much more than I do to my diet. (As I mentioned, I like junk food a lot.) My invitation to try you in any athletic competition stands. I'm sure you'd be convinced that I am in excellent health. So your argument that meat is somehow necessary for good health doesn't stand.

 

[Princess]

Where does the desire to continue living come from? What is it's basis? Why is it important? IOW, so what?

I don't know why some people desire their continued existence. But in general, my flavor of utilitarianism is pretty close to "preference utilitarianism" that you might be familiar with if you've ever dabbled in the AR community for any length of time.

As I mentioned in a post from another thread, pain and pleasure are the actual measures of a being's quality of life. However, people are motivated to satisfy whatever preferences they have in the same way that they are motivated to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Since preference satisfaction is just as much a part of someones quality of life as being free from suffering, you can't harm a person by killing them if they have no desire to live whatsoever.

Why is this wrong? Why should we care? What is the basis for caring?

Why be moral? I don't know, its a big question that philosophers have written thick books trying to answer for the past 2500 years, and I'm not about to answer that question in a single post on a messageboard.

At the very least, you believe rape is wrong regardless of whether the rapists gives a crap about his victims or not, so we both agree that caring about a the people we affect is not a prerequisite for taking them into moral consideration. Whatever the basis is for caring, its not immediately relevant to our moral decisions.

This is where you go south. This is not true. The life of an animal left alone in the wild is exposure to the elements and predation. The vast majority of all animals are eaten alive shortly after birth. Animals who survive birth must spend their lives hungry and exposed to disease, the elements, starvation and predators. If you take an animal out of the wild because you intend to kill it for consumption you may very well treat it better than it would be treated in the wild. At the very least it's life expectancy would very likely be significantly greater than if it were left in the wild. Please compare infant mortality rates of animals in the wild and animals raised in captivity.

I've yet to see this established. On the contrary. I think animal husbandry gives to animals something that they can't have otherwise.

As many times as I've seen this argument, I've yet to see anyone state a plausible solution to predation in the wild. Seriously, what are we supposed to do? Police and micromanage the trillions of ecosystems on the planet? I don't think so.

I don't agree that the life of animals on the factory farm is better than the life of animals in the wild -- but just for the sake of acknowledging your point, I'll concede that captive animals live a better life than wild ones.

Interestingly, your argument for animal husbandry derives from some value you place on animal welfare. Can we make animal husbandry more contiguous with animal welfare? Sure, we can pull them out of the wild and raise them to their natural ends, so that they live the longest happy life, and only euthanizing them prematurely for the sake of their own wellbeing (just like we approach euthanasia regarding humans). This is consistent with animal welfare, and it seems to be the logical end of the argument you're putting forward, although its not especially profitable.

Now, of course, here in the real world, animals are deliberately bred for slaughter. Is there an argument that these animals are better off than they would be in the wild? No, because animals not bred on farms simply don't exist, they don't instead poof into existence in the wild.

Are animals bred on the farm better off for having some kind of existence rather than none at all? At the very least, we can say that its not possible to harm a being by not bringing it into existence (because no being exists to be harmed in the first place, imagine that!); not breeding animals into existence has no moral consequence. However, once they exist, we're responsible for their welfare; its unethical to purposefully breed animals or people into a miserable existence; its is best, if we breed animals, to raise them to live happy lives to their natural ends as mentioned above.

As per your principles that seem to endorse animal welfare, it looks like raising animals to their natural ends or just not breeding them at all is best, and purposefully breeding animals on factory farms is deplorable. Unfortunately, we have to bite the bullet and concede that wild animals don't have a reasonable expectation for a good life, and there's nothing we can do about it. Free range meat is probably better than factory farm meat, but thats like saying its less wrong to kill a person quickly rather than tormenting them beforehand; abstaining from meat (or killing people for that matter) altogether is most consistent with animal welfare.

If you genuinely do care about animal welfare, veganism is the easiest way to do it. Will you come over to the dark and fluffy side, now?

 

[GreNME]

If you genuinely do care about animal welfare, veganism is the easiest way to do it. Will you come over to the dark and fluffy side, now?

I don't mean to offend, but I want to be clear that I don't think it's necessary that you believe I am a true Scotsman or not for me to say I am Scottish.

 

[AWPrime]

Frankly, no. Plenty of diseases mutate and spread across species. Relatively few pathogens survive the inferno of stomach acid anyway. I listed a number of food borne pathogens earlier--you can look up what kinds of food those are carried on. None of them are limited to human flesh.

Most diseases don't jump species. However that are so many diseases, that a large list of zoonotic pathogens will still show up.

[http://www.livescience.com/health/070516_microbes_health.html]
[Many tropical diseases, on the other hand, came from wild non-human primates, such as chimpanzees. Though they are not as abundant as domestic animals, these primates are our closest cousins and therefore pose the weakest species barrier for pathogens to morph to our physiology.]

Also stomach acid doesn't reduce your food to a perfect liquid and you can infected by bad food even before it reaches the acid.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm pointing out that current demand for meat (based on current meat eating practices--that is, eating meat with nearly every meal for most people) probably requires the feed lots and factory farms to supply that demand. I agree that if people at a healthy amount of meat ([snip]), then the demand could be met without the factory farms and feed lots that lead to mistreatment of animals. But they don't, so it can't.

Yes, you are assuming a dead end scenario. If it actually worked in RL, then there wouldn't be laws against animal cruelty. Also most people in the world don't each as much meat as for example an American.

Most people do care about animals, but they also have a natural desire to eat meat. The moral stand point would be to provide the animal everything it needs, if possible given it a better life then it would in the wild. And then at the end take the life gently. Sometimes there are excesses, but that is why we have laws.

I doubt that that's true. Even if it is, how does that affect my decision to be a vegetarian?

It my opinion that for something to be moral it should also be able to be implemented widely. As it stands now its merely a choice. It doesn't actually improve any life of any animal.

Were not trying to convert eachother, but I want to know that its merely a choice.

 

[Cain]

I don't mean to offend, but I want to be clear that I don't think it's necessary that you believe I am a true Scotsman or not for me to say I am Scottish.

I still see you haven't the faintest clue what the No True Scotsman fallacy says.

 

[RandFan]

As I mentioned in a post from another thread, pain and pleasure are the actual measures of a being's quality of life. However, people are motivated to satisfy whatever preferences they have in the same way that they are motivated to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. Since preference satisfaction is just as much a part of someones quality of life as being free from suffering, you can't harm a person by killing them if they have no desire to live whatsoever.

And these are all natural, right?

Why be moral? I don't know, its a big question that philosophers have written thick books trying to answer for the past 2500 years, and I'm not about to answer that question in a single post on a messageboard.

Agreed. Which goes to my point. Right and wrong isn't a simple absolute proposition.

At the very least, you believe rape is wrong regardless of whether the rapists gives a crap about his victims or not, so we both agree that caring about a the people we affect is not a prerequisite for taking them into moral consideration. Whatever the basis is for caring, its not immediately relevant to our moral decisions.

Someone must care about the rape victim or there is no such thing as morality. Right?

As many times as I've seen this argument, I've yet to see anyone state a plausible solution to predation in the wild. Seriously, what are we supposed to do? Police and micromanage the trillions of ecosystems on the planet? I don't think so.

I don't think there is anything that can be done for animals in the wild. However, we can give some animals quality of life and significantly increase their chance of survival. We are not likely to do that without a reason though. Zoos can serve that purpose but animal husbandry for the purpose of consumption is a great way to increase mortality rate and give animals a quality of life because there is something for each side. Animals provide nutrition and humans provide care.

I don't agree that the life of animals on the factory farm is better than the life of animals in the wild -- but just for the sake of acknowledging your point, I'll concede that captive animals live a better life than wild ones.

I'm not sure why you would think that it's not better. What is your thinking why it's not? I was raised on a farm and our animals seemed quite content. They were not stressed. They were well fed and protected from the elements.

Interestingly, your argument for animal husbandry derives from some value you place on animal welfare. Can we make animal husbandry more contiguous with animal welfare? Sure, we can pull them out of the wild and raise them to their natural ends, so that they live the longest happy life, and only euthanizing them prematurely for the sake of their own wellbeing (just like we approach euthanasia regarding humans). This is consistent with animal welfare, and it seems to be the logical end of the argument you're putting forward, although its not especially profitable.

Agreed, so why not care for animals and then kill them and eat them? It's a win win situation.

Now, of course, here in the real world, animals are deliberately bred for slaughter. Is there an argument that these animals are better off than they would be in the wild? No, because animals not bred on farms simply don't exist, they don't instead poof into existence in the wild.

I'm not sure I understand the argument.


I have to go back to Dennet's point. These animals are the result of evolutionary forces. These animals have an adaptive trait that has granted them advantages that animals in the wild don't have.

• High infant mortality rate.
• Protection from predators.
• Protection from the elements.
• Protection from disease.
• Protection from starvation and hunger.

Are animals bred on the farm better off for having some kind of existence rather than none at all? At the very least, we can say that its not possible to harm a being by not bringing it into existence (because no being exists to be harmed in the first place, imagine that!); not breeding animals into existence has no moral consequence. However, once they exist, we're responsible for their welfare; its unethical to purposefully breed animals or people into a miserable existence; its is best, if we breed animals, to raise them to live happy lives to their natural ends as mentioned above.

I don't accept your argument. I don't accept that all farm animals are miserable. I don't accept that animals in the wild are better off than farm animals.

On the other hand, there can be a symbiotic relationship between humans and animals. Animals can give humans sustenance and we give them a guaranteed high infant mortality rate, protection from predators the elements, disease, thirst and starvation.

That's not a bad deal IMO.

As per your principles that seem to endorse animal welfare, it looks like raising animals to their natural ends or just not breeding them at all is best, and purposefully breeding animals on factory farms is deplorable.

Please to clarify?

Unfortunately, we have to bite the bullet and concede that wild animals don't have a reasonable expectation for a good life, and there's nothing we can do about it. Free range meat is probably better than factory farm meat, but thats like saying its less wrong to kill a person quickly rather than tormenting them beforehand; abstaining from meat (or killing people for that matter) altogether is most consistent with animal welfare.

I don't understand the argument. Are you saying that animals are born to suffer and therefore we shouldn't eat them?

If you genuinely do care about animal welfare, veganism is the easiest way to do it. Will you come over to the dark and fluffy side, now?

I like that. Good one.

What I would need to become a vegan is to be shown that animal husbandry truly is harmful to animals in a way that living in the wild is not or at the least that animals in captivity are no better off.

I grew up on a farm. If I had a choice between being an animal raised on my farm and being born into the wild there is simply no choice. It's an idiotically simple choice. Of course I would want a guaranteed existence, not eaten at birth, protected from starvation and disease and not to have to worry about predators.

You?

 

[Ausmerican]

I don't eat meat or wear leather/suede/fur for one simple reason: I don't have it in me to kill an animal and it would be hypocritical to pay someone to do it for me. That's it.

While I see what you are getting at by the above statement as an analogy it falls flat without a little more, ummm, meat.
I dont have it in me to build a car but I have no qualms about paying someone else to do it.
I may or may not be able to handle a violent altercation but I have no qualms about asking a well armed police officer to do it for me.
It is not hypocritical to pay someone to do the things you cannot. It is a foundation of civilization.

Above nitpick aside it s perhaps more noble not to pay someone to do what you do not have the stomach for. (yes, yes, another bad food related pun, my bad.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why be moral? I don't know, its a big question that philosophers have written thick books trying to answer for the past 2500 years, and I'm not about to answer that question in a single post on a messageboard.

A friend of mine has been making a fairly compelling case that all morality is a form of social contract. That is, the reason we don't rape and murder is so we can have a reasonable expectation not to be raped and murdered.

I myself don't buy it. I still think things are right or wrong of themselves. In other words, even if I knew with certainty that my not doing something wrong would not guarantee reciprocal behavior, I'd still want to avoid doing wrong. . .just because it's wrong.

Also since we can't really enter into social contracts with animals (and dependent human babies too), either we have no moral responsibility toward them or we're inventing a fictional "contract" strictly from our own side.

As many times as I've seen this argument, I've yet to see anyone state a plausible solution to predation in the wild. Seriously, what are we supposed to do? Police and micromanage the trillions of ecosystems on the planet? I don't think so.

What exactly is the problem of predation in the wild that needs to be solved?

Seriously, I'm a vegetarian, and I certainly don't think my moral choices should somehow be imposed on wild animals. I make lots of other moral decisions that I would never try to hold wild animals to. (I have images of trying to put loin cloths on the naughty bits of animals in the woods and teaching them table manners!)

Now, of course, here in the real world, animals are deliberately bred for slaughter. Is there an argument that these animals are better off than they would be in the wild? No, because animals not bred on farms simply don't exist, they don't instead poof into existence in the wild.

Are animals bred on the farm better off for having some kind of existence rather than none at all? At the very least, we can say that its not possible to harm a being by not bringing it into existence (because no being exists to be harmed in the first place, imagine that!); not breeding animals into existence has no moral consequence. However, once they exist, we're responsible for their welfare; its unethical to purposefully breed animals or people into a miserable existence; its is best, if we breed animals, to raise them to live happy lives to their natural ends as mentioned above.

I agree totally with these two paragraphs and wish I'd have said exactly that!

It did seem like people were arguing that if we just "left them alone" that all the cows we bred to fill the feed lots would become some sort of feral cow living in the woods or something.

It my opinion that for something to be moral it should also be able to be implemented widely. As it stands now its merely a choice. It doesn't actually improve any life of any animal.

Were not trying to convert eachother, but I want to know that its merely a choice.

I'm not sure why or how you distinguish between "it's moral" and "it's merely a choice". I've said over and over that my being vegetarian is a moral choice I've made for myself.

If there were no freedom of choice involved, then discussing morality would be pointless.