What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Cain]

Several other posters have understood them thoroughly, I find the fault must lie with you.

Perhaps. (As far as I know, only two other posters have commented on it, neither of whom demonstrated an understanding of your position.)

Most of your last post didn't address my points directly but relied on abstract, unfocused accusations of my lack of understanding.

Didn't you think that was instructive? Here's how it goes: you post, then I reply, then you reply and so on. Since you did not really address my post, there's not a whole lot for me to reply to and I'm forced to stage an intervention of sorts. You can go back and address it now.

The two points you made that actually almost addressed my argument were the accusation of moral relativism, which in the sense you intended the criticism was incorrect, and a clear misreading of my intent with discussion of emotion, which I feel I pointed out.

Yes, you did point that out. You never explained it, but you did point it out.

Which basic questions did I repeatedly fail to answer?

A slight clarification: you repeatedly failed to answer basic questions. Go back to the post before last -- maybe we can get Kevin to throw up a hard link -- and then reply to the sentences ending with this "?" symbol.

Social contract covers a broad range ideas about how groups of humans form states to maintain social order. Any system where individuals give up some level of their liberty to act as they please to some law that provides stability falls very well under this term.

False. On this view, Randroids in Libertopia would fall under social contractractarianism, as could almost any system, including military dictatorship. I think most or all communication break-down follows from here. Several days ago, or whenever you first posted your spiel, I filed you away as the "social contract guy" I'm not sure why you insisted on starting with the background conditions. Now you're the ~egoism guy.

Take for instance my question on evaluating three different societies, and your answer, quoted here:

To answer your question about different societies with different values, it would depend how these cultures interacted with the broader world. A self contained society that banned all meat consumption, that banned only certain animals, or one that allowed animal cruelty could all be internally consistent [Cain: not in any morally rational way]. And, in fact, historically, we've had all of these. You're right, I can't find any basis to judge them, but I also can't find any reason to judge them until they come into active contact with a society that doesn't share their values.

If we're really talking about self-interest, then it could have helped to state the obvious: you would personally prefer the one that allows the consumption meat and prohibits animal abuse since it's most consistent with your arbitrary desires.

At the outset you offered to explain the morality surrounding your diet, but it turns out that morality is non-existent. Take for instance the prudent predator exchanges above involving the theft of a million dollars, where decisions are ruled by emotions rather than reason. On this view expected individual costs and benefits are what matter, yes? Whether or not there is a victim is only a cost-accounting factor vis-a-vis guilt/"emotional revulsion," feelings shaped by culture and biology. Here's an example I've used in the past, and I wouldn't bother unless I could copy/paste:

You wake up in a small, white room. A voice explains that you have been captured to conduct a moral experiment. On a screen you are shown profiles of a dozen people described as "normal and decent." Your captor says they will all die unless you push the red button that sits before you. The red button carries with it personal consequences: Your memory of this event will be wiped clean and a significant sum of money will be deducted from your bank account. Alternatively, you can push the blue button, in which case all of the people shown will be killed (but made to look like accidents). Some will die quite horribly. For choosing blue you will also receive a memory wipe of this event, but your funds will remain in tact. Should I bother pre-empting lawyerly control questions ("do I believe this guy?" Yes. "memory wiping is impossible!" Not here. "How do I know he's not going to continually do this to me?" He promises, and you believe him and he won't. "Will I read about one of these people dying in the newspaper?" No. And so on.)

Like your other criticisms, you don't in any way say why you believe I am wrong or cite any particular part of my quote or use evidence or do any of those things that make a criticism intellectually honest. You simply make the assertion.

My posts do quote, clarify positions, cite reasons and so on as the record above testifies. The exception is a self-conscious one as I explained. I can only advise you pull your head from the sand.

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

On arbitrary non-rational standards:

Translation: non-vegans are stupid idiots, and therefore wrong.

Alternative translation: I don't understand your position, therefore you're wrong.

You're boring me.

Sure. I eat those too.

Non-responsive.

Certainly there is some conditioning involved, but for humans, the role it plays is much smaller. No matter how you try to misinterpret it, the point is clear: humans are capable of abstract thinking. Animals aren't. That is a distinction just as arbitrary and just as valid as "ability to experience pain".

Humans are certainly capable of an abstract thinking inaccessible to animals. Some humans are capable of an abstract thinking inaccessible to other humans. I've already been over arbitrary and non-arbitrary standards, not worth restating, least of all to disabuse you of fanciful notions...

Look, the social contract, emotional revulsion, potentiality and other arguments only serve a single purpose here: to show we do not kill babies or torture animals even though we think eating animals is okay. This was your original point; you claimed non-vegans should be indifferent to such things. We have shown you we aren't. You have proceeded to argue that not our reasons for eating meat, but our reasons for not killing babies are illogical. Either you genuinely believe that we should eat babies, or you're making one, huge strawman. Which is it?

I do not think you understand what internal consistency means. I do not deny that you have invented reasons to your own satisfaction for arbitrarily discriminating. People have been doing that since they could. But you're not really making an argument, it's more chatter. I'm getting bored.

On a coma victim:

And embryos grow up to children. Perfectly analogous.

Negative. You're again confusing acorns and oak trees. Coma victims have already developed interests. I don't know why you continue to embarrass yourself on this point.

On ending all "unnecessary suffering pain"

As for the "meat is not necessary, me not understand why you eat it", well, I do realize you don't get it, but arguments from incredulity won't get you anywhere here.

Non-responsive (NR).

On embyros and five year olds:

This really is more about abortion than animal rights. Either start that new thread, or stop talking about it. I believe the potentiality matters, and that's the important point.

NR.

You miss my point. Your question was "why would you save embryos". One answer is "I have a natural tendency to care for the young members of my species". It isn't an abstract moral reason, but it nevertheless explains my actions.

Yes, it certainly does explain your actions. Alternatively you could say "because I wanted to" and that would be just as good, er, meaningless. We're in a moral context: do you think it justifies your actions? A person could believe in God because he's dumb, he's raised in a religious household (culture), he's innately predisposed to superstition (biology). These are good explanations for why he believes what he does, but terrible reasons. So, in a way, your answer is NR.

You can confuse the issue all you like, but the point is just that I care about twelve embryos that will grow up to be children more than just one child. It's not a point that has anything to do with animal rights. Abortion thread, or stop talking about it.

No, it goes to the value of life and arbitrary discrimination on the basis of species membership.

I never said I consider past experiences to be important when determining the moral status of an individual. It should be clear from context that isn't what I refer to as "richness of mental life". You keep misrepresenting my points. It's dishonest and useless.

Richness of mental life refers to the life led by the five year-old, but if that violates the copyrighted meaning for an idiosyncratic phrase I chose to mock, then I'll happily consign it the suffering bin. The central point is that a five year old is not as easily replaceable.

And no, having a twin doesn't make you more "replaceable".

Not quite what I asked. You seemed to place value on the "uniqueness" of the beings in question. Are you withdrawing, or revising that claim?

We could find an orphan five-year old to replace the dead one in two. Why would that not do? The same reason as with the embryos.

I already provided you with reasons why that's not the case.

If this example is so hard for you to understand, then just mentally replace the embryos with newborn babies. Maybe then you'll get where I'm coming from.

Yes, well, I guessed that's where you're coming from. If you don't think there's a moral distinction between a five year-old and an embryo, then why should a newborn be anything special? Here's the problem. I think there are important moral differences between an embryo and a five year-old. I think there are fewer moral differences between a five year-old and an infant. You insist on confusing all of them.

----------------
Cyborg, we had the opener, the feature, and now you're headliner. Good job, buddy.

So really why do you expect me to feel guilty if I just take the next step and get slightly more involved?

I don't know if I expect you to feel guilty, nor am I concerned about feelings. Let's talk about right and wrong. You're responsible for your actions, right? In your earlier examples, from what I recall, you played a role in pushing seals toward the whale and swiping the whale's meal. In the revised example things went down exactly as they would have without your presence, except seal meat did not waste away (so we denied microorganisms a meal).

That is kinda what economic analysis is for. If you present a random factoid "X takes Y resources and this is bad!" then you really are going to have to be a bit more detailed in how you came to decide that is was a bad amount of resource as opposed to a good amount of resource. Otherwise you're just through a jumble of arguments and seeing what sticks rather than presenting a coherent case as for the economic justification for not eating meat.

You were earlier talking about the sort of micro-transactions that are virtually impossible for an individual to measure and calculate. But this objection, as I said earlier, would not apply exclusively to veganism. *yawn*

 

[Cain]

It is not necessary to do so. You have arbitrarily chosen to require that it be a moral issue.

If it's not a moral issue, then is it a mistake for non-vegetarians/vegans to insist on humane farming and slaughtering?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Why is it not a moral issue?

Explain to me why you "sympathise" with animals if how we treat them is not even a moral question.

My emotions have nothing to do with morality. There's no moral or philosophical reason for me to enjoy a sunrise. I just do. I apologize if that's a natural fallacy. I said I wouldn't do that anymore.

This isn't even about the conclusion to eat meat (yet). What I'm interested in is how you can wall off diet from moral consideration. Questions like "Should bestiality be illegal?", "Should we outlaw bear-baiting?" and "Should I dog-fight?" are questions with moral dimensions, aren't they? If not, on what other grounds can we even start discussing these issues? That being the case, on what grounds can meat eating be excluded even from consideration?

Society has decided that those things are immoral. The last living human in the universe can eat a live baby duck and screw a goat while watching a dog-fight. Without a society it would not be immoral.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

If it's not a moral issue, then is it a mistake for non-vegetarians/vegans to insist on humane farming and slaughtering?

No, but they should realize that they do it to make themselves feel better. Temple Grandin sympathizes with animals but she improves facilities at stockyards and slaughter houses because it makes the job of handling livestock easier for everyone involved.

 

[mumblethrax]

Society has decided that those things are immoral. The last living human in the universe can eat a live baby duck and screw a goat while watching a dog-fight. Without a society it would not be immoral.

Has our society ever done anything you considered to be immoral? Are there any laws currently on the books that you consider to be unjust? Is your reaction to every moral debate in history "As goes society, so go I..."?

 

[Cain]

No, but they should realize that they do it to make themselves feel better.

All of them? Is this also true for environmentalists? Human rights activists? Parents?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Has our society ever done anything you considered to be immoral?

Yes, but that's just my opinion and we all know what that's worth.

Are there any laws currently on the books that you consider to be unjust?

Yes, but that's just my opinion and we all know what that's worth.

Is your reaction to every moral debate in history "As goes society, so go I..."?

No, as a contributing member of society, I have the right and duty to inject my values and beliefs into the social debate. I get to voice my opinion and you get to give it all the consideration you think it deserves.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

All of them? Is this also true for environmentalists? Human rights activists? Parents?

No, sometimes activists do act on moral issues.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If it's not a moral issue, then is it a mistake for non-vegetarians/vegans to insist on humane farming and slaughtering?

Haven't we been down this road before, Cain?

There are very practical reason for humane farming and slaughtering, to include the flavor of the meat (non release of various hormones etc during the slaughtering process) but there appears to be an emotional element to the decision as well.

Necessary? Probably no, since for centuries no such requirements were made and people still made do with meat raised in a variety of ways.

Mistake? No opinion there, as it's an option chosen. IIRC, there is some dispute on whether or not various calf raising methods for veal are humane, or not. Veal is still available for sale, and delicious.

DR

 

[mumblethrax]

Yes, but that's just my opinion and we all know what that's worth.


Yes, but that's just my opinion and we all know what that's worth.


No, as a contributing member of society, I have the right and duty to inject my values and beliefs into the social debate. I get to voice my opinion and you get to give it all the consideration you think it deserves.

So you don't actually buy the idea that society decides what is immoral (otherwise, you'd have no grounds for holding a contrary opinion).

What I find frustrating about these threads is that people will take whatever steps necessary to nihilistically privilege their own views. Moral relativism is provisionally accepted long enough to cloak opinions and protect them from scrutiny; you see, my inchoate opinion is just as meaningful as yours, because neither is meaningful at all. As soon as the topic drifts to something that doesn't implicate their own behavior, we're back to confident moral proclamations. Dogfighting is a brutal bloodsport that ought to end. Eating meat...well, what is this morality stuff, anyway?

Sapere aude.

 

[Piscivore]

So you don't actually buy the idea that society decides what is immoral.

I don't, because there is no such entity as "society"- there is just a mass of people each with their own opinions and their own varying ability to influence others.

What I find frustrating about these threads is that people will take whatever steps necessary to nihilistically privilege their own views. Moral relativism is provisionally accepted long enough to cloak opinions and protect them from scrutiny; you see, my inchoate opinion is just as meaningful as yours, because neither is meaningful at all. As soon as the topic drifts to something that doesn't implicate their own behavior, we're back to confident moral proclamations. Dogfighting is a brutal bloodsport that ought to end. Eating meat...well, what is this morality stuff, anyway?

What you are getting frustrated by is your apparent inability to tell the difference between an opinion and a "moral proclamation".

"Dogfighting is a brutal bloodsport that ought to end" is also an opinion, and where this opinion trumps opinions to the contrary it becomes a subjective moral truth, but it does not make it an objective moral truth. Right now, the opinion "Dogfighting is a brutal bloodsport that ought to end" has enough people sharing it that their collected ability to influence makes it a subjective moral truth in our society in general.

Contrariwise, "Eating meat is cruelty"- also an opinion- does not have enough people that share it to make it a subjective moral truth in our society in general, so the contrary opinions are still the subjective moral thruths. However, those sub-groups for which this opinion is a subjective moral truth like to pretend it is an objective moral truth in order to try to persuade others to adopt their opinion.

If there are objective moral truths, I'd love to here from whence they come and how they are determined to be so.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

So you don't actually buy the idea that society decides what is immoral (otherwise, you'd have no grounds for holding a contrary opinion).

Don't put words in my mouth. All I have said in this entire thread is that society decides what is moral or immoral. I need no moral grounds to hold a contrary opinion. Just like vegans need no moral grounds to hold their opinion of eating meat.

What I find frustrating about these threads is that people will take whatever steps necessary to nihilistically privilege their own views. Moral relativism is provisionally accepted long enough to cloak opinions and protect them from scrutiny; you see, my inchoate opinion is just as meaningful as yours, because neither is meaningful at all. As soon as the topic drifts to something that doesn't implicate their own behavior, we're back to confident moral proclamations. Dogfighting is a brutal bloodsport that ought to end. Eating meat...well, what is this morality stuff, anyway?

Sapere aude.

This has been the most dishonest post I have read in this thread. When I tried to broaden the debate for clarity I got accused of using straw men. You broaden the debate to include every moral issue ever confronted in human history and every law "on the books," then set up the most blatant straw man I have ever seen. I have clearly delineated the difference between social morals and individual opinions. You ignored it and stated that I hold a contrary position to what I have stated all along. You are standing on your head in a hole and proclaiming yourself above those you disagree with.

 

[mumblethrax]

I don't, because there is no such entity as "society"- there is just a mass of people each with their own opinions and their own varying ability to influence others.

And people don't exist, they're just a mass of individuals cells with their own behavior.

My eyes glaze over. "Society frowns upon murder" is a perfectly intelligible sentence to any minimally competent speaker of English, and one that does not require that society be a distinct entity.

If there are objective moral truths, I'd love to here from whence they come and how they are determined to be so.

I'd just like to point out here that I was complaining about inchoate ideas about morality, and not asserting that there is such a thing as objective moral truth. You've agreed with me by pointing out that people hold subjective moral opinions irrespective of whether they've managed to get the rest of society on board, so we have to maintain a distinction between "what I believe" and "what society allows."

I think Kevin has already done a good job of laying out the objectivist position--in particular, he's cleared up the common confusion between ontological objectivism and epistemological objectivism. I direct you to his posts in this thread.

 

[Cain]

There are very practical reason for humane farming and slaughtering, to include the flavor of the meat (non release of various hormones etc during the slaughtering process) but there appears to be an emotional element to the decision as well.

It seems to be primarily about humane treatment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Slaughter_Act#2002

I wonder why it took an expose from an undercover reporter to change things. By your reasoning I would have expected consumers-who-like-good-tasting meat to rise up.

I don't see why we need to legislation if it's a matter of taste. Companies produce inferior off-brand products all the time; people buy them because they cost less. Let the free market decide.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I don't, because there is no such entity as "society"- there is just a mass of people each with their own opinions and their own varying ability to influence others.

I think that is society so you went the other way around the house and we arrived at the same place. Have a fish on me.

 

[Cain]

No, sometimes activists do act on moral issues.

But not in the case of animal rights activists. Like, somebody can be concerned about the environment (for human-centered reasons to be sure), or human rights in Africa, or health-care for the poor, or for their kids. But they're not really concerned about the well-being of animals. So a person would not make a moral distinction between someone harming their big screen television versus their family dog?

 

[mumblethrax]

Don't put words in my mouth. All I have said in this entire thread is that society decides what is moral or immoral. I need no moral grounds to hold a contrary opinion. Just like vegans need no moral grounds to hold their opinion of eating meat.

If you believe that society determines what is moral or immoral, then all you have to do to answer any question about morality is look to what society has determined. So it does not make sense to then assert that you can hold a position contrary to society's view on any given topic. It's like saying "Science is how we discover things about the natural world, and, by the way, God created the Earth 6,000 years ago."

This has been the most dishonest post I have read in this thread. When I tried to broaden the debate for clarity I got accused of using straw men. You broaden the debate to include every moral issue ever confronted in human history and every law "on the books," then set up the most blatant straw man I have ever seen. I have clearly delineated the difference between social morals and individual opinions. You ignored it and stated that I hold a contrary position to what I have stated all along. You are standing on your head in a hole and proclaiming yourself above those you disagree with.

No, you've declared that society determines what is moral and that you nevertheless can hold a contrary position on what is moral without contradiction. It's nonsense.

 

[tsig]

Really? You want an example of "a moral rule based on philosophy"?

Seriously. All of them. Don't kill, don't steal, don't rape your sister. Or do. Because those are also moral positions. Name a moral position. It's philosophical.

Morality is a philosophical construct. Morality is philosophical, inherently. I don't even understand why you're asking the question.

Ok justify "don't kill" philosophically.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

If you believe that society determines what is moral or immoral, then all you have to do to answer any question about morality is look to what society has determined. So it does not make sense to then assert that you can hold a position contrary to society's view on any given topic. It's like saying "Science is how we discover things about the natural world, and, by the way, God created the Earth 6,000 years ago."


No, you've declared that society determines what is moral and that you nevertheless can hold a contrary position on what is moral without contradiction. It's nonsense.

More straw men. Stop posting them.

/Kevin_Lowe

 

[Thurkon]

I would agree with the above: there is no such thing as objective moral truths. We can agree, to an extent, what constitutes moral behavior in a civilized society, but that is hardly concrete morality, and far from some objective truth. Prohibiting murder, rape theft, etc. is necessary for a society to thrive, but we really get hung up on the finer points, don't we? There are no easy answers.

Life feeds on life, but vegetarians have somehow determined that life which is more biologically similar to ourselves is more worthy. Where they obtained this information has always confounded me. This is the central question: Are some life forms more valuable than others? All other questions, like the quality of farms, slaughterhouses, painful/painless methods of execution, etc. confuse the issue and are unnecessary. As with the discussion of capital punishment, the central issue is whether or not it is moral to kill a dangerous criminal, not whether lethal injection is painful, whether sometimes innocent people are executed...these are other issues that can be dealt with, individually, as are the issues relating to the killing of animals. The central question remains: is it moral?

Until you can provide me with proof that it is moral to kill a carrot, yet immoral to kill a chicken, you have nothing. Stop arguing this issue emotionally. It doesn't matter whether vegetables, fish, or other forms of life experience life in a way dissimilar from us, they are inarguably alive. Unless you plan on dying, you must feed on that life.