What is your excuse for killing animals?

[HumanityBlues]

Or it's a form of trolling, getting a rise out of the silly animal rights activists. Maybe with some bizarre species-centric machismo/superiority thrown in. As in:

Speaking of trolling. That orangutan in your picture looks delicious.

 

[cienaños]

I just joined WETA.

Worms for the Ethical Treatment of Andrew.

There's a video about it wiggling around on I'maTube, the grave meme of the moment.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Incoherent and useless? How so?

I'll save you the trouble of looking up a wikipedia article to educate yourself. Moral relativism is useless and incoherent because it makes the notion of moral progress meaningless, it obliges us to accept as moral the behaviour of bride-burners, slavers, Nazis and ever other revolting group in history, and it either forces the morality of the majority on every minority (if you consider morality a popular vote deal) or makes morality meaningless (if everyone's personal ideas about morality are by definition right).

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.

You can't know any such thing. All you can do is adopt the best objectivist moral standards you can figure out and apply them to everyone, regardless of what their culture happens to say about it. (Culture of course counts as an extenuating circumstance).

It beats the hell out of the known alternatives: relativism, religion and nihilism.

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?

It is a straw man, and it will remain one until somebody in this thread posts something to the effect that plants should have rights.

If you don't understand someone else's position you should ask questions about it, not make **** up about it. I realise I'm probably in the wrong thread if I expect civility, decency or adult behaviour but that doesn't mean I have to put up with it.

I punish my dog if he misbehaves. I don't eat animals because I saw an animal do it.

So what point did you think you were making?

If you weren't saying "I saw a turtle kill a duck one day, so that makes it okay for me to do it", what on Earth was the point of your anecdote?

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.

The naturalistic fallacy. Stop posting it.

Exactly, Kevin. Exactly.

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

Yet some moral philosophies are more useful and/or consistent than others. It's no surprise therefore than animal rights have followed the same generally upward arc as the other liberal virtues such as equality and personal freedom.

 

[cyborg]

You really should pay attention. I'm setting up the bullet-bite: if the argument that says Jim can eat steak also allows Ryan to torture cows, then there's a problem. A big problem.

So your argument hinges on a slippery slope "if"?

No, this does not follow.

Yes, it does, since you have removed cruelty from the analysis in lieu of "potenial cruelty". See slippery slope above.

And this is even more bizarre.

In what way?

 

[cyborg]

Moral relativism is useless and incoherent because it makes the notion of moral progress meaningless,

Making the notional of moral progress meaningless does not entail moral relativism is incoherent.

Not that it does so of course: every moral system has some sort of platonic ideal that can be progressed towards. You are simply making the stronger argument that there is only one platonic ideal of morality.

All you can do is adopt the best objectivist moral standards you can figure out and apply them to everyone, regardless of what their culture happens to say about it.

Which is completely the wrong way to do it of course.

You should start with what you want the outcomes to be and work backwards to moral systems that can actually achieve them.

It is a straw man, and it will remain one until somebody in this thread posts something to the effect that plants should have rights.

Plants should have the right to photosynthesise in peace, free from the threat of shade, or drought.

If you weren't saying "I saw a turtle kill a duck one day, so that makes it okay for me to do it", what on Earth was the point of your anecdote?

That you want to a simple set of rules that say what is right and what is wrong and that you can't ever have them because life is just too messy for that.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Making the notional of moral progress meaningless does not entail moral relativism is incoherent.

It does entail the conclusion that it's useless, however.

Not that it does so of course: every moral system has some sort of platonic ideal that can be progressed towards. You are simply making the stronger argument that there is only one platonic ideal of morality.

Another straw man? Really?

There are multiple objectivist moral philosophies which are potentially useful. All I'm saying is that relativism, nihilism and the naturalistic fallacy are useless and philosophically bankrupt.

Which is completely the wrong way to do it of course.

You should start with what you want the outcomes to be and work backwards to moral systems that can actually achieve them.

That's called utilitarianism, or rather the most common moral philosophy that takes that approach is called utilitarianism. However you have it a bit muddled: You aren't "working backwards" from an outcome you want, you're "working forwards" from the initial assumption that what is morally important is achieving desirable outcomes.

Plants should have the right to photosynthesise in peace, free from the threat of shade, or drought.

Okay. RenaissanceBiker, direct your attacks on people who think plants have rights to Cyborg. Just leave the rest of us out of it, since nobody else has espoused such a dumb position.

That you want to a simple set of rules that say what is right and what is wrong and that you can't ever have them because life is just too messy for that.

Another straw man? Really?

Can you please either discuss this issue without resorting to idiotic straw men or not post at all? Call it a token gesture towards environmentalism, and save a few electrons.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Obviously we can find contractarianism lacking on more fundamental, non-vegan grounds. Putting these objections aside for a moment, it appears animals lose status on your view. What's to stop me from abusing cats for fun? I own them, they're mine, and there's no threat of a united animal uprising (I mean, we are talking about cats here). Your reasoning strongly implies torture, dog-fighting, take-your-pick should be allowed... unless the contract contains a mechanism unknown to me.

And here lies a basic tension: meat-eaters want a justification to consume animals, but almost everybody also wants reasoning that prohibits cruelty. How can your social contract reconcile these demands?

Bolding mine.

Well, I did post this before, but if you didn't read it, I'll sum it up again.

I don't think animals have any rights at all. They are not humans. They do not have human minds, they don't understand morals or care about them. They do feel pain in the sense a computer feels me typing, but there's no person there to give the pain meaning. Hence, there's no moral concern no matter what happens to an animal. That's why I don't stage rescue operations to rabbit that hurt their legs in the woods. Do you? If animals have rights, it seems logical that you should.

Thus, there's no reason why cruelty to animals would be immoral as such. Your making the false assumption that everybody thinks animal torture is evil. This simply is not the case; look at all the popular forms of animal fighting, for an example.

Nevertheless, my particular view (which I believe comes from Kant, originally, though my memory could be wrong) does state unnecessary cruelty to animals is wrong. The reason for this is as follows: the behavior a person shows when being unnecessarily cruel to an animal is similar to the behavior of being cruel to a human. The animal itself doesn't "suffer" in the sense humans do, but the act of harming it for no reason has an undesirable effect on the perpetrator themselves and their moral compass. The reason I don't hurt animals for fun is the same reason I don't carve my initials on trees or vandalize playgrounds; I consider meaningless acts of destruction stupid and harmful.

Lastly, you're wrong in thinking meat-eaters "want justification for eating animals". We believe no justification is needed. If you want to convince us, you need to present a reason why there's anything wrong with eating meat - one that doesn't hinge on the assumption that animals have or should have any rights similar to humans.

 

[Mirrorglass]

It does entail the conclusion that it's useless, however.

Another straw man? Really?

There are multiple objectivist moral philosophies which are potentially useful. All I'm saying is that relativism, nihilism and the naturalistic fallacy are useless and philosophically bankrupt.

I think you're going to have to define what you mean by "useful".

Also, are you actually saying there are multiple, but equally valid moral philosophies that are objectivistic, but do not make the same assumptions about what is objective? Do you know what this view is called?

That's called utilitarianism, or rather the most common moral philosophy that takes that approach is called utilitarianism. However you have it a bit muddled: You aren't "working backwards" from an outcome you want, you're "working forwards" from the initial assumption that what is morally important is achieving desirable outcomes.

If I'm correct, you're essentially saying morality forms the basis for which outcomes are desirable. In my opinion, it's exactly opposite; "desirable outcome" is the basis and reason for all human activity. Any moral system is simply a tool that is used to reach that outcome. Desire does not depend on morals, morals depend on desire.

 

[cyborg]

It does entail the conclusion that it's useless, however.

No, not really.

There are multiple objectivist moral philosophies which are potentially useful

Based on a utility criterion that comes from where exactly?

When you brought up the Nazis did you consider that a killer argument? I have no problem with the existence of the Nazis. Sorry - I won't engage in the populist knee-jerk reactions of "OMG NAZIS R EVIL". I'm not even going to presume the primacy of the individual in society as is the common political fashion. If the Nazis had made a society that was as superior as they presumed then that would be all that matters from an evolutionary perspective.

All I'm saying is that relativism, nihilism and the naturalistic fallacy are useless and philosophically bankrupt.

And all I'm saying is morals are relative whether or not you decide upon a particular set as being superior or not. Whether or not that is "useless" it is obstensibly true".

That's called utilitarianism, or rather the most common moral philosophy that takes that approach is called utilitarianism. However you have it a bit muddled: You aren't "working backwards" from an outcome you want, you're "working forwards" from the initial assumption that what is morally important is achieving desirable outcomes.

I said nothing of utilitarianism.

It is working backwards - from logical propositions to axioms, not from axioms to logical propositions.

If animal cruelty is the issue then start from what things are cruel and the nature of cruelty, not from "eating meat is morally wrong because it is cruel".

Okay. RenaissanceBiker, direct your attacks on people who think plants have rights to Cyborg. Just leave the rest of us out of it, since nobody else has espoused such a dumb position.

I think it's dumb - if we are going to go to that level that you lamented early - that you think you have "rights" - so I have no problem working in the other direction.

Rights are imaginary constructs given to you by convention. They can evapourate in a second. They could popup and be given to anything we deem worthy of them. You go ahead and make up any rationalisation you want for why you deem somethings have rights and others not.

[qupte]Can you please either discuss this issue without resorting to idiotic straw men or not post at all?[/QUOTE]

Yes. Can you?

You can complain about strawmen all you like but you will insist on making hidden assumptions all the time. Consider the purpose of the discussion to refine understanding rather than continually insisting that I want to argue against some predefined notion.

(Coming down to your level where you seem to like it).

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

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.

Can you see your house from way up there? Here's your arguement used on another topic. Defecation is bad, immoral and must be stopped. It is bad for the environment. Feces contain organic substances that pollute our natural waters and is harmful to creatures that dwell there. Feces contain harmful bacteria which kill thousands of people each year. Defecation is morally wrong and should be stopped.

I'll save you the trouble of looking up a wikipedia article to educate yourself. Moral relativism is useless and incoherent because it makes the notion of moral progress meaningless, it obliges us to accept as moral the behaviour of bride-burners, slavers, Nazis and ever other revolting group in history, and it either forces the morality of the majority on every minority (if you consider morality a popular vote deal) or makes morality meaningless (if everyone's personal ideas about morality are by definition right).

Nazis? Really? Nearly everyone (including me) considers the holocaust to be immoral and inhumane. Moral relativism does not require me to consider it acceptable. You inadvertantly proved MY point with YOUR straw man.

You can't know any such thing. All you can do is adopt the best objectivist moral standards you can figure out and apply them to everyone, regardless of what their culture happens to say about it. (Culture of course counts as an extenuating circumstance).

Objective moral standards with extenuating circumstances. Ok, I'll go look up that wikipedia article.

It is a straw man, and it will remain one until somebody in this thread posts something to the effect that plants should have rights.

I brought it up to use your same arguement against something you find morally acceptable.

If you don't understand someone else's position you should ask questions about it, not make **** up about it. I realise I'm probably in the wrong thread if I expect civility, decency or adult behaviour but that doesn't mean I have to put up with it.

I'm asking questions to try and understand your objections to eating meat. I don't think I have crossed any lines of civility or decency. It's not like I called you a Nazi or anything.

The naturalistic fallacy. Stop posting it.

I will not. In fact, I wonder if you can argue against the immorality of defecation without it.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I ask you again, Kevin (and anyone who thinks they can answer this coherently): Tho whom do I have to justify the killing of animals? Any animal? (From a Gazelle to an ant, to bacteria on my glass of water). To whom? Who keeps tabs of the "rules" of who has a "right" to die and who doesn't? Who is the ultimate President of the Moral Rights of the living creatures of planet earth? Who speaks for the animals?

And who made him/her King of the Wild Kingdom? (Because unless it was the animals who voted him/her King, I suspect the answer will inevitably sound dishonest and self-interested from one particular species)

 

[DC]

I ask you again, Kevin (and anyone who thinks they can answer this coherently): Tho whom do I have to justify the killing of animals? Any animal? (From a Gazelle to an ant, to bacteria on my glass of water). To whom? Who keeps tabs of the "rules" of who has a "right" to die and who doesn't? Who is the ultimate President of the Moral Rights of the living creatures of planet earth? Who speaks for the animals?

And who made him/her King of the Wild Kingdom? (Because unless it was the animals who voted him/her King, I suspect the answer will inevitably sound dishonest and self-interested from one particular species)

to yourself.

 

[cyborg]

to yourself.

Right, and when that fails to provoke the desired reaction one is simply told that they are being a poopy head instead.

 

[mumblethrax]

Non Meat eaters, please address my previous post. By abdicating your responsibility to animal kind you are consigning countless animal lives to oblivion, even entire species are being lost to your selfish desire to avoid manning up and just eating that chicken.

By not having children, I consign countless of my potential descendants to oblivion. I'm expecting to be arrested for crimes against humanity any moment now.

The loss of a heritage breed is about as morally interesting as the loss of steam engine technology.

 

[Cain]

So your argument hinges on a slippery slope "if"?

You should more. Like, in general. Maybe it will help you read carefully. CM's post suggests animals never rise above property, so I should be able to torture, maim, kill as I please. That's not a slippery slope. You'd have more success attacking people who say that if animals have rights we are obligated to scour the woods for rabbits who have broken an unlucky foot.

Yes, it does, since you have removed cruelty from the analysis in lieu of "potenial cruelty". See slippery slope above.

Again, you're clueless.

In what way?

Bizarre in the sense that you pretend you're more connected to reality. Spouting this while claiming to understand my true motives is not really relevant (and your "analysis" not at all correct), so I won't bother.

------------------------
Mirrorglass:

I don't think animals have any rights at all. They are not humans. They do not have human minds, they don't understand morals or care about them.

A series of arbitrary judgments that do not follow from one another. Why should toddlers have rights -- an objection that was also brought up before.

They do feel pain in the sense a computer feels me typing, but there's no person there to give the pain meaning. Hence, there's no moral concern no matter what happens to an animal.

So non-human pain needs the a human to give it meaning. That's a new one. A human bleeds to death on the side of a mountain, alone, suffering. That's meaningful. A non-human primate dies the same way and it's meaningless. This is the argument of an egoist but with a different standard, in some ways an even more arbitrary standard. So, why should the suffering of a Haitian be of any concern to me? I don't know him.

Thus, there's no reason why cruelty to animals would be immoral as such. Your making the false assumption that everybody thinks animal torture is evil.

I know, right? That's clear in the sentence you helpfully highlighted: almost everybody also wants reasoning that prohibits cruelty.

This simply is not the case; look at all the popular forms of animal fighting, for an example.

And humans do not have rights either: look at all the torture, war and cruelty in the last one-hundred years.

Nevertheless, my particular view (which I believe comes from Kant, originally, though my memory could be wrong) does state unnecessary cruelty to animals is wrong. The reason for this is as follows: the behavior a person shows when being unnecessarily cruel to an animal is similar to the behavior of being cruel to a human. The animal itself doesn't "suffer" in the sense humans do, but the act of harming it for no reason has an undesirable effect on the perpetrator themselves and their moral compass. The reason I don't hurt animals for fun is the same reason I don't carve my initials on trees or vandalize playgrounds; I consider meaningless acts of destruction stupid and harmful.

Yes. I mean, that's an intuitively obvious view. We see someone torturing dogs and immediately think, "my goodness, look at what he's doing to himself." This orientation would also suggest that thrashing Mr. Wilson's prized begonias is worse than stabbing stray cats.

Lastly, you're wrong in thinking meat-eaters "want justification for eating animals". We believe no justification is needed. If you want to convince us, you need to present a reason why there's anything wrong with eating meat - one that doesn't hinge on the assumption that animals have or should have any rights similar to humans.

I think most meat-eaters believe they have justified eating animals. Then, after the slightest scrutiny has been brought to bear on their unexamined assumptions, they try to shift the burden of the argument. However, I think it should stay with the side claiming the authority to kill and torture. The case for concern for animals has been made above. They have mental lives -- interests -- they're capable of experiencing pain. I don't have anything new to add, just what's tried and true.

-----------------
RenaissanceBiker:

Can you see your house from way up there? Here's your arguement used on another topic. Defecation is bad, immoral and must be stopped. It is bad for the environment. Feces contain organic substances that pollute our natural waters and is harmful to creatures that dwell there. Feces contain harmful bacteria which kill thousands of people each year. Defecation is morally wrong and should be stopped.

What is "defecation" a placeholder for in my argument? I don't think this is at all related to anything I have said, but it's not a terribly compelling argument. If humans could choose not to defecate -- if the only reason we defecated was because it felt good -- then you might have a case.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

What is "defecation" a placeholder for in my argument? I don't think this is at all related to anything I have said, but it's not a terribly compelling argument. If humans could choose not to defecate -- if the only reason we defecated was because it felt good -- then you might have a case.

I eat meat because it is nutritious and delicious (when properly prepared). Is nutrition a sufficient reason to eat meat? I can live (in a literal sense) without enjoying what I eat.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

to yourself.

Wrong. Because

1) I don't speak for the Animal Kingdom
2) I don't live with any burdens of guilt for eating animals.

Sorry. Try again.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

They kill each other, they kill us, and I LIKE eating them. Life is what it is.

 

[mumblethrax]

I eat meat because it is nutritious and delicious (when properly prepared). Is nutrition a sufficient reason to eat meat? I can live (in a literal sense) without enjoying what I eat.

It would be if meat were the only source of nutritious food. But you can also live without eating meat. (You can even enjoy what you eat without eating meat.) The mere existence of people who don't eat meat demonstrates that there are viable alternatives.

Which goes a long way towards explaining why so many people find the mere existence of vegans threatening.

 

[Drudgewire]

(You can even enjoy what you eat without eating meat.)

YOU may be able to. Eating from a laundry list of less tasty alternatives in order to avoid eating something delicious doesn't fall under my definition of "enjoyable."