What is your excuse for killing animals?

[cienaños]

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)

see post #362 for a succinct answer to your query.

 

[cyborg]

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.

Actually "suggests" implies exactly that. I am not CM though so it's got nothing to do with what I am saying.

It's pretty simple Cain - your objection to eating meat is not being based on the eating of the meat in and of itself.

Everything else is just a matter of how humans decide to farm the natural resources of the world. You don't like that people don't agree with you plain and simple. Nothing more morally high brow than that judging by your other responses to people.

Again, you're clueless.

NO YOU!

HAHA! I can act like a child too!

Bizarre in the sense that you pretend you're more connected to reality.

Where exactly? I say nothing of the sort: I imply that you seem unwilling to accept the realty of life being basically cruel.

Spouting this while claiming to understand my true motives

Where do I claim this? It's simply what you're saying that leads me to believe this.

 

[cyborg]

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

You just don't UNDERSTAND how irrational you are being!

The ration thing to do is to make sure you eat the waste out of McDonald's bins like vegans do.

 

[Mister Earl]

What about the untold millions of field mice and rabbits and insects that die when crops are harvested? Don't their lives count as well? And vegans don't even eat those. Why do you believe you have the right to make pronouncements about morality regarding the killing and eating of animals, when you are responsible for the deaths of so many that you do not even eat?

 

[cyborg]

What about the untold millions of field mice and rabbits and insects that die when crops are harvested? Don't their lives count as well?

I'm sure there's some ridiculous reason why that's not a problem.

Why do you believe you have the right to make pronouncements about morality regarding the killing and eating of animals, when you are responsible for the deaths of so many that you do not even eat?

Because as long as their hands are clean in their eyes the volume of blood doesn't actually seem to matter it seems.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

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.

Irrelevant. The question is what is my excuse for killing animals. The answer is because it is natural to do so. I don't care if there are alternatives, we are omnivores and I don't need to justify it. They kill us too, so it's only fair. How can you justify killing MORE plants to save a few animals anyways

 

[Eos of the Eons]

You just don't UNDERSTAND how irrational you are being!

The ration thing to do is to make sure you eat the waste out of McDonald's bins like vegans do.

Nummy!! Yeah, I don't care to hide my omnivorous tendancies.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

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.

Some people choose to limit their source of nutrition by not eating meat. That doesn't make eating meat morally wrong. You could choose to eat only certain plants. That wouldn't make people who eat all plants immoral.

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

Your choice may seem odd to me but I am not threatened by it. I feel threatened when vegans proclaim that we should all be vegans. I'm not threatened by your choice. I'm threatened when you try to force your choice upon me. I am not aware of anyone trying to force you to eat meat. You need no excuse to limit your diet this way. I need no excuse for my diet either.

I'm signing off for the weekend. I hope you all enjoy it as much as I plan to.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Mirrorglass:


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.

Because they're human and will soon develop into moral subjects, if given the chance. Chickens won't.

It is not arbitrary to set the line between human and animal to capability for abstract thinking. I could accept the idea that an ape that's been taught sign language deserves some moral consideration, though I'd only grant it rights similar to humans if it could show it understood the concept of morality.

That is the important point: a moral subject is a being capable of developing the concept of morality. All other beings are moral objects, and as such, have no inherent rights. The distinction is not arbitrary, no matter how many times you say it is.

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.

Trust me, it's not a new one. The idea is much older than your idea of animal rights.

The attitude is not egoistic. It's closer to utilitarian. The point is as I've said above; moral considerations only apply to beings capable of forming concepts of morality. Are you actually saying we should be building hospitals for non-human primates, and that this endeavor is equally valuable to helping other humans?

If your moral system doesn't apply to people you don't know, fair enough. It's very egoistic, but such things are up to you. My moral system applies to all moral subjects, a group which happens to be pretty much identical to the group of all human beings. Babies, too, since they have the potential to learn.

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

Why do you assume this is the view of the majority? Evidence?

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

The question here was not about whether animal torture is wrong, but whether it's commonly accepted as such. Don't confound the issues.

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.

The first is an argument from incredulity, the second is a non-sequitur.

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.

No, like I've said, we don't believe any justification is needed. It's your idea of animal rights that's the new one. If you're content with looking down on meat-eaters, fine. But if you're genuinely interested in animal rights, the first thing you must do is construct proof they have any.

How do you define whether or not something has a mental life or interests? Where do you draw the line between what is okay to kill and what isn't?

 

[Piscivore]

A human bleeds to death on the side of a mountain, alone, suffering. That's meaningful.

Only to himself and maybe the people that know him. The rest of the humans couldn't care less.

 

[mumblethrax]

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."

Yes, it's impossible to enjoy anything but the best. Do you really believe this? In any case, there are plenty of delicious vegan foods available to us.

Irrelevant. The question is what is my excuse for killing animals. The answer is because it is natural to do so. I don't care if there are alternatives, we are omnivores and I don't need to justify it. They kill us too, so it's only fair. How can you justify killing MORE plants to save a few animals anyways

This is perplexing. Did you read the post I was responding to? But the errors you're making have been answered dozens of times in this thread already. To justify an action by calling it natural is simply to justify all human behavior.

Some people choose to limit their source of nutrition by not eating meat. That doesn't make eating meat morally wrong. You could choose to eat only certain plants. That wouldn't make people who eat all plants immoral.

No, the fact that eating meat entails cruelty to animals in most circumstances makes it wrong. And of course you understand this--it's implicit in the attempt at justification. If you thought there was no moral problem here you'd say "I don't see a moral problem here" and not "Meat is nutritious."

Your choice may seem odd to me but I am not threatened by it. I feel threatened when vegans proclaim that we should all be vegans. I'm not threatened by your choice. I'm threatened when you try to force your choice upon me. I am not aware of anyone trying to force you to eat meat. You need no excuse to limit your diet this way. I need no excuse for my diet either.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. "Force." When has this ever happened? People only perceive rational arguments and private behaviors as transgressive when they feel threatened by them in some way.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Only to himself and maybe the people that know him. The rest of the humans couldn't care less.

I would, and given the chance, I'd help the guy. Even if he was a dick.

 

[Piscivore]

I would, and given the chance, I'd help the guy. Even if he was a dick.

I wasn't using a particularly stringent definition of "know". Odds are, there are a few bleeding on mountain tops right now. Best guesses put the number of people dying this year at 51 million. A person could drive himself spare trying to think about that many people, let alone care about all of them.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

This is perplexing. Did you read the post I was responding to? But the errors you're making have been answered dozens of times in this thread already. To justify an action by calling it natural is simply to justify all human behavior.

Bzzt. Wrong. That would be like asking a lion to justify eating a zebra. We're OMINIVORES. No need to justify it. If a lion kills another lion though, and not because it is hungry, the other lions would look at it funny... fighting over a mate or something?

 

[mumblethrax]

Bzzt. Wrong. That would be like asking a lion to justify eating a zebra. We're OMINIVORES. No need to justify it. If a lion kills another lion though, and not because it is hungry, the other lions would look at it funny... fighting over a mate or something?

A mule is an animal with long funny ears....

 

[Mirrorglass]

I wasn't using a particularly stringent definition of "know". Odds are, there are a few bleeding on mountain tops right now. Best guesses put the number of people dying this year at 51 million. A person could drive himself spare trying to think about that many people, let alone care about all of them.

I still think it's moral to try and help all those people collectively. Obviously it's impossible for me to do anything about the mountaineer personally, but I can give some of my income to charities and vote for taxes that, among other things, fund the helicopters used to rescue people after mountaineering accidents.

 

[Piscivore]

I still think it's moral to try and help all those people collectively. Obviously it's impossible for me to do anything about the mountaineer personally, but I can give some of my income to charities and vote for taxes that, among other things, fund the helicopters used to rescue people after mountaineering accidents.

That's great, in the abstract, and I commend you for it. It doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of those 51 million deaths are not going to be "meaningfull" to you (or most people) personally.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

A mule is an animal with long funny ears....

You calling me names for eating animals now? Fail. We're all meat. A shark likes our meat.

 

[Mirrorglass]

That's great, in the abstract, and I commend you for it. It doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of those 51 million deaths are not going to be "meaningfull" to you (or most people) personally.

I suppose, and if that's all you meant, then I have no problem with it. I thought you were making an argument along the lines of "people don't care about people unrelated to them dying."

 

[mumblethrax]

You calling me names for eating animals now? Fail. We're all meat. A shark likes our meat.

No, I'm quoting a song whose lyrics you might like to consider. You're not a dumb animal, which is what distinguishes you from a lion or a shark. You have the ability to engage in a rational discourse, for example. I wish you'd employ it.