What is your excuse for killing animals?

[bruto]

I'm suggesting that you are wrong and that you are putting forward a false dichotomy.

There are options other than "We are above nature and can thus do whatever the hell we like" and "We are part of nature and can thus do whatever the hell we like".

You mean it's more complicated than that? Pass the smelling salts.

 

[volatile]

Go back and read my entire post instead of limiting yourself to quoting one piece and then making irrelevant questions that are nothing but a strawman argument type of response from your part.

It's not a "strawman", Ron. I've not attributed any particular viewpoint to you. It's a series of questions, and I'm interested in your answers. I just wonder if you really meant that eating meat is completely lacking any moral dimension, and if you'd stand by the consequences of that line of thinking. If you do think that -- and if you do, fine -- then my follow-up questions will be different to ones if your view was a little more nuanced. So I need to make sure I understand your point clearly and honestly.

In fact, in that respect, it's the exact opposite of a stawman: I'm asking you to clarify your views so that any future posts I make do not mis-characterise your opinions.

So: Do you think animals are worthy of any moral consideration at all? Where do you stand on animal cruelty laws, or ethics committees for, say, primate research? Should we condemn people who dogfight, or torture their pets? Is there anything wrong with bestiality? Or making bears dance? I'm not accusing you of thinking any of these things are OK -- I just wonder if you think those questions are ones which have a moral dimension to them, and, if so, why questions of eating animals do not.

Once we get those clear - because I honestly don't know what you'd answer - we can perhaps move the discussion forward.

 

[CriticalSock]

....
So: Do you think animals are worthy of any moral consideration at all? Where do you stand on animal cruelty laws, or ethics committees for, say, primate research? Should we condemn people who dogfight, or torture their pets? Is there anything wrong with bestiality? Or making bears dance? I'm not accusing you of thinking any of these things are OK -- I just wonder if you think those questions are ones which have a moral dimension to them, and, if so, why questions of eating animals do not...

The moral consideration is for the humans involved in the examples you give, not the animals. dog fighting etc is making an improper use of a natural resource. It's immoral in the same way that harvesting a field of wheat and then letting it rot in the bins is immoral.

Beastiality is an interesting one. Both the human and the animal get a shag out of the deal, no harm done. But it does say something about the humans mental condition that they feel the need to find sexual satisfaction from outside their species. Hmm... I'll go do some experimenting and let you know.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I have discovered mice in my garage. They found an old bag with some grass seed in it and have been living pretty good. I removed the grass seed and put out classic spring traps baited with peanut butter. Is that wrong?

The Mrs. and I were sitting on our porch last summer when a rather bold squirrel began exploring the flower bed just a few feet in front of me. My wife whispered, "You're not going to kill him are you?" The thought hadn't even occurred to me. I answered, "No. If I kill him, I have to eat him."

 

[Ocelot]

I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.

Evolution also tells us that we're related to vegetables.

I'm assuming that you draw the line at eating animals not because we're of the same seed as them (because go back far enough and the same can be said of a nut roast) but instead because of their capacity for suffering.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're essentially fruitarian eating only what falls to the ground. That is an option to those who oppose killing any organism in order to eat. It's quite a challenge to construct a balanced diet under such restrictions but some people manage.

However for most vegetarians I know it's that animals can suffer; we have no reasons to believe that plants do.

As such I draw the line slightly differently, I've tried a vegetarian diet (actually pescetarian but lets not split hairs) but having been brought up an omnivore I find that I've developed certain tastes and habit. In short I'm a fussy eater. I found it prohibitively difficult to construct a balanced diet even with the more liberal interpretation of vegetarianism. So instead I simply seek to ensure that the animals I eat meet certain welfare standards. After all we do have a symbiotic relationship with domesticated breeds. If bacon wasn't quite so tasty the truffle hunters would be on the endangered list. If we managed to reduce the suffering of livestock to negligible levels then we're certainly doing them a favour by eating them!

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So: Do you think animals are worthy of any moral consideration at all?

Animals are neither "worthy" nor "unworthy" of these rights. Besides, who do you think grants them these rights? Who makes them "worthy" or "unworthy" in the first place? God? Nah. It's us. Humans. The whole argument is a self-important human attempt at trying to decide who he allows to llve and who doesn't, and then try to justify it with a "moral" argument.

Where do you stand on animal cruelty laws, or ethics committees for, say, primate research?

I would probably feel inclined to support actions that protect the animals I feel connected with. However, at the same time, I would not give a flying rat's arse about cockroach rights, mosquito rights and cancer cell rights. How about you? Where do you stand on the rights of these not-so-popular creatures?

Should we condemn people who dogfight, or torture their pets? Is there anything wrong with bestiality? Or making bears dance? I'm not accusing you of thinking any of these things are OK -- I just wonder if you think those questions are ones which have a moral dimension to them, and, if so, why questions of eating animals do not.

Once we get those clear - because I honestly don't know what you'd answer - we can perhaps move the discussion forward.

Alright, let me try to illustrate it to you again (yes, again. Because if you had indeed payed attention to my previous posts, I wouldn't need to clarify this again):

If I see someone torturing a cat or a dog, I will feel for the animal and will fight the person and demand that they treat them right. If I see someone torturing a bear cub or a ferret, I will hit them and make sure they treat them properly. If I see someone killing a mosquito I will not behave this way. Same thing with cockroaches, worms, flies, etc etc etc.

If you're gonna make a point about moral rights, I wanna hear your take on ALL living creatures, not just the ones we find cute.

There's a reason we're selective about this issue. There's a genetic reason: We feel closer to our species and to the species that are close to us or reminds us of our species. We do not care about the ones that are not like us (that's why seeing a tank full of condemned lobsters would be considered unacceptable if it was bunnies instead). We are naturally biased toward certain animals, and not toward others. That's the reason you never see someone fighting for the rights of toe fungus (which is a living creature). Our "concern" for animal rights is a selective and thus, dishonest fight. There are no "animal rights". There's animals and then there's humans and then there's the question of what we're gonna do. How are we gonna share the space with them. But nature isn't keeping tabs of all the deaths that are happening. It just keeps on doing its thing.

Additionally, there is no moral code in nature. If you get stranded in a forest and a hungry lion sees you, you can waste all your time trying to beg him to spare you a chance because you've been good and decent all your life. The lion will eat you anyway. Nature acts blindly. It doesn't punish nor reward. There is no inherent moral code in nature. The only thing there is, is humans, who created the concept of morality and like pretty much everything else, designed it to fit their own biased human-like vision.

We can perfectly well protect (in the legal sense) the creatures that we care for and try to keep the natural balance of nature to break, by avoiding the unnecessary killing of animals.... or then we can choose to lead a life of destruction. To carelessly go around destroying whatever we don't like and still justify it with a "moral argument" so that our conscious rests in peace. Regardless of what we do, the choice is ours. The responsibility is on us. Nature does not know nor care about our Politics. It just keeps doing whatever it is inclined to do. Whatever we do, we can still make it moral, since it's all an agreed contract. It's a biased, human-oriented mentality. It's neither right nor wrong. But I'm all for helping as much as we can. I just don't think it would be honest to fight for the rights of living creatures, when there are endless living creatures we carelessly kill. And it is certainly not realistic to think we can just live without killing anything.

 

[Piscivore]

I have discovered mice in my garage. They found an old bag with some grass seed in it and have been living pretty good. I removed the grass seed and put out classic spring traps baited with peanut butter. Is that wrong?

I don't know... did you eat what you caught?

The Mrs. and I were sitting on our porch last summer when a rather bold squirrel began exploring the flower bed just a few feet in front of me. My wife whispered, "You're not going to kill him are you?" The thought hadn't even occurred to me. I answered, "No. If I kill him, I have to eat him."

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I ended up killing 10 mice in 3 days! This morning the trap was empty. I hope I got them all. I didn't eat any of them, but in hindsight I should have saved them for use as turtle bait. I'm putting out some hooks to try and catch some snapping turtles this weekend. I plan to make some tasty soup. I'll have to use some beef hearts or liver.

 

[Piscivore]

I ended up killing 10 mice in 3 days! This morning the trap was empty. I hope I got them all. I didn't eat any of them, but in hindsight I should have saved them for use as turtle bait. I'm putting out some hooks to try and catch some snapping turtles this weekend. I plan to make some tasty soup. I'll have to use some beef hearts or liver.

That is something I've not yet tried. What does turtle soup taste like?

 

[Mirrorglass]

I ended up killing 10 mice in 3 days! This morning the trap was empty. I hope I got them all. I didn't eat any of them, but in hindsight I should have saved them for use as turtle bait. I'm putting out some hooks to try and catch some snapping turtles this weekend. I plan to make some tasty soup. I'll have to use some beef hearts or liver.

Is beef heart very different from plain beef? I've never tried any, but the concept is intriguing.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Is beef heart very different from plain beef? I've never tried any, but the concept is intriguing.

So I've heard

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

There's a reason we're selective about this issue. There's a genetic reason: We feel closer to our species and to the species that are close to us or reminds us of our species. We do not care about the ones that are not like us (that's why seeing a tank full of condemned lobsters would be considered unacceptable if it was bunnies instead). We are naturally biased toward certain animals, and not toward others. That's the reason you never see someone fighting for the rights of toe fungus (which is a living creature).

I'm pretty sure this is absolute nonsense.

Until very recently, historically speaking, animals had no rights and the idea of animals having any kind of moral status was absurd. If this tendency was genetic, as you're claiming, it would have been evident throughout history instead of popping up as it did in 1600s as humanity entered an age of relative enlightenment.

The moral status of animals has been a topic of philosophical discussion ever since then, and the modern animal liberation movement is very much influenced by the modern philosopher Peter Singer.

What has led to the current legal and moral status of animals is intelligent people thinking about it, realising that it's inescapably true that unnecessary cruelty to animals is evil if the term has any meaning at all, and spreading this idea amongst the public.

Similarly the consensus of the people who've thought about it is that animals (including humans) are morally valuable in some way correlated with the richness of their mental lives. That is why you don't see anyone fighting for the rights of toe fungus.

It's also interesting that the "lol I luv killing animals" posts didn't stop after I pointed out how vacuous they were. I'm not sure whether it's evidence for the "cognitive dissonance" theory or for the "just not capable of intelligent thought on this topic" theory.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

That is something I've not yet tried. What does turtle soup taste like?

It depends on the recipe. I like it. When I was in high school, I worked at a Long John Silver's restaurant. The weekend manager was a good old boy. I would bring in some snapping turtle and some frog legs I caught and we would cook them in the LJS batter and deep fryer. Once a customer saw us pulling them out of the fryer and asked how much a plate of frog legs cost. We had to disappoint him.

Is beef heart very different from plain beef? I've never tried any, but the concept is intriguing.

It's leaner and can be tough if not cooked right. Toughness is what I want in something that needs to stay on the hook. I'll let it sit out for a few days to get "ripe." Turtles like that.

I'm not attempting to insult the people who post "I eat meat and I think it's okay for reasons X, Y and Z". Usually reasons X, Y and Z don't stand up to any scrutiny at all, but at least those people are trying to engage in a discussion. I'm wondering about the psychology of people who feel compelled to make posts which express nothing but their own claimed lack of interest in discussion.

I eat meat and I think it is OK because I am a human. Our species evolved as omnivores, eating whatever we could. Now we dominate the planet and raise animals as part of our organized food supply industry. I don't see anything wrong with supplementing that with wild game. Meat is nutritious, delicious and plentiful. I don't understand why you consider it morally wrong.

People, people, people. The naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy. The fact that something is "natural" is in absolutely no way an argument for it being morally good. Any argument that starts waffling on about what behaviour or diet is "natural" for humans has nothing to say about what is moral for humans.

Well, if you don't like the nature arguement what arguement are you going to let me use? Human society defines what is moral. What is moral today might not be tomorrow when society's values change. The next logical step from not eating animals is not eating plants. Plants are living organisms. They deserve to live and thrive as much as anything else. If it is morally wrong to eat organisms, we need to manufacture food out of non-living raw materials. I don't think that is feasible with current technology.

What has led to the current legal and moral status of animals is intelligent people thinking about it, realising that it's inescapably true that unnecessary cruelty to animals is evil if the term has any meaning at all, and spreading this idea amongst the public.

I agree that unnecessary cruelty is morally wrong. Does that imply that necessary cruelty is not? Is it morally good to minimize necessary cruelty in order to feed our population? I'm thinking of Temple Grandin's work to make slaughter houses more humane for the animals to be slaughtered. I intend to remove the snapping turtles from a pond in my neighborhood because they are eating all the fish. I have seen snapping turtles take baby ducks. They take the last one in line to avoid alarming the rest. I once saw a snapping turtle attack a full grown duck. They fought for 20 minutes with the duck occasionally surfacing for air. The turtle eventually won. If the turtle thinks other species are an acceptable food source, why can't I?

Similarly the consensus of the people who've thought about it is that animals (including humans) are morally valuable in some way correlated with the richness of their mental lives. That is why you don't see anyone fighting for the rights of toe fungus.

Some animals are morally valuable. Some plants are morally valuable. If I mow down Mrs. RB's hostas I will be in big trouble. If a farmer mows down a whole field of wheat to make grain he is rewarded. If a person tortures a kitten he will be in big trouble. Why is it wrong for me to kill and eat a snapping turtle?

BTW, mouse 11 was in the trap yesterday.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I eat meat and I think it is OK because I am a human. Our species evolved as omnivores, eating whatever we could. Now we dominate the planet and raise animals as part of our organized food supply industry. I don't see anything wrong with supplementing that with wild game. Meat is nutritious, delicious and plentiful. I don't understand why you consider it morally wrong.

This has already been discussed. Page back and search for "naturalistic fallacy" or "is/ought problem" and take up the thread of the argument if you wish, but you're about as likely to solve the three body problem as you are to successfully derive a moral claim from a factual claim.

Well, if you don't like the nature arguement what arguement are you going to let me use? Human society defines what is moral. What is moral today might not be tomorrow when society's values change.

Oh, okay, you're a moral relativist. It's an incoherent and hence useless moral theory, but each to their own. We've got nothing to say to each other then, except for me to clarify my position where you've misstated it.

The next logical step from not eating animals is not eating plants. Plants are living organisms. They deserve to live and thrive as much as anything else. If it is morally wrong to eat organisms, we need to manufacture food out of non-living raw materials. I don't think that is feasible with current technology.

Why do I need to repeat myself? Plants have no mental lives. That is not "the next logical step", it's a straw man.

I agree that unnecessary cruelty is morally wrong. Does that imply that necessary cruelty is not? Is it morally good to minimize necessary cruelty in order to feed our population? I'm thinking of Temple Grandin's work to make slaughter houses more humane for the animals to be slaughtered. I intend to remove the snapping turtles from a pond in my neighborhood because they are eating all the fish. I have seen snapping turtles take baby ducks. They take the last one in line to avoid alarming the rest. I once saw a snapping turtle attack a full grown duck. They fought for 20 minutes with the duck occasionally surfacing for air. The turtle eventually won. If the turtle thinks other species are an acceptable food source, why can't I?

Do you hold animals morally culpable for what they do? I don't. By exactly the same reasoning I don't think it's okay for me to do something just because I saw an animal do it.

 

[cyborg]

Until very recently, historically speaking, animals had no rights and the idea of animals having any kind of moral status was absurd. If this tendency was genetic, as you're claiming, it would have been evident throughout history instead of popping up as it did in 1600s

Similarly the consensus of the people who've thought about it is that animals (including humans) are morally valuable in some way correlated with the richness of their mental lives.

The argument is that it is genetic that the things found valuable in other species are those which we find valuable in ourselves - which you confirm with a bias towards things with "rich mental lives" - which presumably means that the moral value of the brain damaged is in question.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

This has already been discussed. Page back and search for "naturalistic fallacy" or "is/ought problem" and take up the thread of the argument if you wish, but you're about as likely to solve the three body problem as you are to successfully derive a moral claim from a factual claim.

I did. You haven't really explained the other option you implied here:

There are options other than "We are above nature and can thus do whatever the hell we like" and "We are part of nature and can thus do whatever the hell we like".

I certainly don't think we can do whatever we like. I do think we are a part of nature. If you are implying that we are part of nature but can't do whatever we want, then we seem to agree. We are bound by morals. We seem to disagree about the source of those morals.

Oh, okay, you're a moral relativist. It's an incoherent and hence useless moral theory, but each to their own. We've got nothing to say to each other then, except for me to clarify my position where you've misstated it.

Incoherent and useless? How so? The concept of absolute morals is absurd and indefensible. Now that we have called each other's morality names, please explain how we can know an absolute moral.

Why do I need to repeat myself? Plants have no mental lives. That is not "the next logical step", it's a straw man.

Like this one. Just because plants have no mental ability they are not given moral consideration. It's not a straw man. I'm asking you to define the line between which organisms are worthy of moral consideration and which are not. Ants have mental ability. Worms have mental ability. Where is the line and how do we know that the line is absolute?

Do you hold animals morally culpable for what they do? I don't. By exactly the same reasoning I don't think it's okay for me to do something just because I saw an animal do it.

I punish my dog if he misbehaves. I don't eat animals because I saw an animal do it. The animals and I eat each other because that is the nature of life on our planet. That's as close to being an absolute moral as it gets.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

My excuse is that some of them are delicious, and I stay away from the ones I suspect of being sentient.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm pretty sure this is absolute nonsense.

Until very recently, historically speaking, animals had no rights and the idea of animals having any kind of moral status was absurd. If this tendency was genetic, as you're claiming, it would have been evident throughout history instead of popping up as it did in 1600s as humanity entered an age of relative enlightenment.

The moral status of animals has been a topic of philosophical discussion ever since then, and the modern animal liberation movement is very much influenced by the modern philosopher Peter Singer.

What has led to the current legal and moral status of animals is intelligent people thinking about it, realising that it's inescapably true that unnecessary cruelty to animals is evil if the term has any meaning at all, and spreading this idea amongst the public.

Similarly the consensus of the people who've thought about it is that animals (including humans) are morally valuable in some way correlated with the richness of their mental lives. That is why you don't see anyone fighting for the rights of toe fungus.

It's also interesting that the "lol I luv killing animals" posts didn't stop after I pointed out how vacuous they were. I'm not sure whether it's evidence for the "cognitive dissonance" theory or for the "just not capable of intelligent thought on this topic" theory.

Exactly, Kevin. Exactly.

As I have stated, morality is a subset of Human Culture. It is not inherent in nature.

Stop arguing morality as if it was inherent to nature. It's a consensus reached by humans, created by their won culture.

(In other words, to whom do you think I have to present an "excuse" for killing animals? Who do you think is gonna hold me "accountable"? Mother Nature? God?)

 

[Cain]

These threads are amusing because meat-eaters, with no rational arguments at their disposal, are almost invariably reduced to a puddle of nihilism. Stomping out puddles is not worth the effort, too bad the sun cannot rise soon enough.

 

[Slimething]

These threads are amusing because meat-eaters, with no rational arguments at their disposal, are almost invariably reduced to a puddle of nihilism. Stomping out puddles is not worth the effort, too bad the sun cannot rise soon enough.

Why not put us all in our place by revealing the One Truth That Makes Us All Think Like You (tm)? Seriously, it must be easier than being so judgmental all day.