What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Mirrorglass]

It is not possible to read things that are not there.

I think that's one claim the vegan side has managed to prove false.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Some things are not worth stating more than several times; your last post was less remarkable than others because of its non-responsiveness.

While I appreciate you calling my posts remarkable, I must insist you at least try to make some points. If it seems my answer was "unresponsive", then your question probably wasn't posed in a way I understand.

As for the embryo/child stuff, we really should not discuss it here. It's not necessary for the argument, and it will confound issues, as I grant moral rights to embryos but you don't. You won't understand any of my arguments about embryos until you understand I consider them small children. And if you wish to call that stupid, you'll have to start a new thread for it.

So, if you want to make the baby-analogy, limit yourself to young, but born, children. That way we'll be on the same page.

Your approach has been inconsistent throughout. Can you imagine if a vegan said we should not consume animals because of the "brutalizing effect on society"? Well, I suppose some vegans even make that argument.

Can I imagine a vegan saying that? Sure. I don't know if any have. But why would that matter? I'm arguing from the omnivore side.

What evidence do you have to support these "brutalizing" claims?

This isn't a scientific argument. I can't provide such evidence, just as you can't provide evidence cows suffer or care about dying. We'll have to make do with logical constructs.

The basic idea is simple. As I'm sure you know, animals evoke an emphatic response in humans. It's not as strong as our response to our own species, but it is similar qualitatively. As such, cruelty toward animals is, for the perpetrator, a process similar to cruelty toward humans. As such, it's reasonable to assume letting people do either is a bad idea. Would you trust me to watch your children if you'd seen me torture a cat, or even tear the wings off a fly? Thought not. The idea is the same. I don't want any guys like that in my society.

As for meat, that is violence with a reason; namely the well-being of society. Animals butchered effectively and humanely contribute to society, and the butcher isn't doing it for fun, so it's not comparable to the examples of animal cruelty above. The same reasoning applies to humans; a man who is a threat to the rest of the society is imprisoned, even though this is an act of violence towards him. Lesser reasons are not sufficient to harm people for two reasons: 1) Their human rights; something I, and most humans, grant each other for both moral and natural reasons and 2) humans are much more useful when treated well.

This suggests that it's not as morally wrong to torture cats and get away with it, then to never torture cats but convince others you did.

You forget the effect on the perpetrator themselves, and the fact it's impossible to be sure you'll never be caught. As for convincing others you hurt cats, it might hurt society, but not to great extent. Neither is quite as bad to the whole, so you could say they're "less morally wrong". Still wrong, though.

Not only is it a ridiculous argument, but one you failed to consistently apply: when choosing to save a five year-old versus a freezer full of embryos, the proper response would should have been to discuss the social effects. Instead you went straight to the status of the embryos.

The reason I didn't elaborate on my reasoning was I didn't believe it was essential to this point, and assumed you still remembered my earlier posts.

As for the inconsistency you spotted, you should realize it stems from your assumption that I don't consider embryos worthy of concern. You're not completely wrong; I would choose one five-year old over one embryo, but in the question here, an important factor is the mothers (and fathers). Twelve grieving mothers and twelve dead babies (or stillbirths, if you like) can well be considered worse than one dead child and one grieving mother. This is indeed what I did.

No, they have an interest in continuing to live. It's certainly better to kill animals (human and non-human) when they're not conscious, but it denies the freedom to experience their lives. An individual is their identity. If you could upload a person's brain architecture and memories into a computer (as in, say The 6th Day) then it would be immoral to destroy the software containing an identity. Organisms at the beginning of their life (e.g. an embryo) lack an identity, and do not live under the threat of identity death.

The importance of built identity is something we disagree on. It's also a problematic concept when it comes to animals; I'm not willing to buy the claim that a cow builds much more identity after the first time it stands up on shaky legs. (I also don't care much about an identity of a being incapable of understanding there's such a thing as identity.) To push the analogy a bit further, what if the comatose patient was known to have lost all memory?

You're now attempting to quote me out of context, which is why with you it's often useful to go back to my original post where you wanted to duck an argument because you claimed it dealt with abortion, a topic for "a new thread." No, I answered, it goes to the value of life, or the "alleged value of life," if you prefer.

I'm pretty sure I quoted the entire post. If I missed something, I apologize. The point stands. You can't just assume there's a generally accepted thing called "value of life". You'll have to explain what it is and why I should believe in it.

And I'm not ducking the arguments; if you want to discuss embryo rights, I'll be happy to accompany you, but it's rude to do it in a thread dedicated to discussion of animal rights. I maintain we can do all the necessary analogies with small babies, and that will help, as we won't be making conflicting assumptions. At least not so many.

You do not want to go down this road. Funerals for five year-olds are very different than miscarriages. Furthermore, I would not be surprised that a woman who miscarries is more likely to "try again," than someone who loses a five year-old.

I suggest it's you who should tread lightly here. Have you actually spoken to a woman with a miscarriage, especially late in pregnancy? The emotional attachment is not comparable to a child born alive, but to assume it's negligible, which it seems to me you're doing, is either very ignorant or very lacking in empathy.

You should address Kevin directly rather than bury this here. I suspect he will say that if you really think yours is an adequate standard, then you should have the courage to be consistent and apply it to all humans. I look forward to the embryo's plea.

This wasn't directed to you. As for Kevin, the moment he respond to my arguments, I'll responds to him. I suspect he has me on ignore, though.

 

[Cain]

Rearranging some text for topical clarity:

As for the embryo/child stuff, we really should not discuss it here. It's not necessary for the argument, and it will confound issues, as I grant moral rights to embryos but you don't. You won't understand any of my arguments about embryos until you understand I consider them small children. And if you wish to call that stupid, you'll have to start a new thread for it.

So, if you want to make the baby-analogy, limit yourself to young, but born, children. That way we'll be on the same page.

...

I'm pretty sure I quoted the entire post. If I missed something, I apologize. The point stands. You can't just assume there's a generally accepted thing called "value of life". You'll have to explain what it is and why I should believe in it.

By misquoting I mean "value of life" in your written comments, which I said can be rephrased "the alleged value of life," or if you prefer, "questions of which lives matter and why/why not." Embryos are fair game. If I started a topic on abortion, then you would probably say it's a mistake to bring up animal comparisons because of the unavoidable implications.

On Brutalizing Effects:

Can I imagine a vegan saying that? Sure. I don't know if any have. But why would that matter? I'm arguing from the omnivore side.

It's more coherent argument from a vegan point of view, but a silly argument nevertheless.

This isn't a scientific argument. I can't provide such evidence, just as you can't provide evidence cows suffer or care about dying.

We argued cows suffering/feeling pain earlier where you had to resort to wordplay that is too clumsy to be described as Orwellian; closer to Bush-speak, and even then not always easy to maintain the lie as on at least one occasion you misspoke the truth. I don't think that's worth any more effort. Instead let's look at why your intuition is mistaken:

We'll have to make do with logical constructs.

The basic idea is simple. As I'm sure you know, animals evoke an emphatic response in humans. It's not as strong as our response to our own species, but it is similar qualitatively. As such, cruelty toward animals is, for the perpetrator, a process similar to cruelty toward humans. As such, it's reasonable to assume letting people do either is a bad idea. Would you trust me to watch your children if you'd seen me torture a cat, or even tear the wings off a fly? Thought not. The idea is the same. I don't want any guys like that in my society.

Billions of animals are killed in the U.S. every year. That's an incomprehensibly high figure; the vast majority of humans are just not equipped with brains capable of understanding it. Given the sheer numbers, abuse is inescapable.

"The death of one man is tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

There are people starving right now, and yes, the thought of this reality might pain people, images even more so, which is why people change the channel and do no think about it. You're engaged in a deeply self-deluded project if you think you can square this circle.

When it comes to hiring baby-sitters, parents do bring aboard people who have done terrible things, but are normal by all outward appearances. They decline to hire socially awkward people who are otherwise mentally fit. It's also instructive your example involves one person torturing a cat; what if it was a CEO who profited from torturing millions of cats?

As for meat, that is violence with a reason; namely the well-being of society. Animals butchered effectively and humanely contribute to society, and the butcher isn't doing it for fun, so it's not comparable to the examples of animal cruelty above. The same reasoning applies to humans; a man who is a threat to the rest of the society is imprisoned, even though this is an act of violence towards him. Lesser reasons are not sufficient to harm people for two reasons: 1) Their human rights; something I, and most humans, grant each other for both moral and natural reasons and 2) humans are much more useful when treated well.

These are terrible arguments, and they can go both ways. What if a society delights in torturing convicts? You also overlook the morality of lying--

It's true that most people want animals treated humanely. But it's also true that people want meat to cost as little possible. The optimal solution from a business stand point is TELL people that animals are treated humanely, and then to do whatever maximizes profits. This is probably the default position for business.

In radio people are asked if they want music stations that play a wide variety of music. "Oh, yes, wide variety -- that's me." Lots of market research supporting that attitude. So what did owners do? They started stations that played a wide mix... and people tuned out. In fact, listeners really do want to hear the same 12 songs. The ideal solution for a station is to SAY they play the biggest variety and then broadcast the dozen songs that are currently popular.

And here's the problem with your position: there's no great difference between animals being treated humanely and people believing animals are treated humanely. Welcome to Bush World.

You forget the effect on the perpetrator themselves, and the fact it's impossible to be sure you'll never be caught.
As for convincing others you hurt cats, it might hurt society, but not to great extent. Neither is quite as bad to the whole, so you could say they're "less morally wrong". Still wrong, though.

This is not a clear answer. First, you're infantilizing the cat torturer. Second, the torturer might be certain he can get away with it -- his power over animals is intoxicating -- and he realizes that if anyone ever learns of this behavior it will cause harm (evoking feelings of sympathy). So he keeps it a secret, and since the difference in the human psyche between 23 and 24 is so tiny, he keeps at it. Alternatively, you have a person who is malicious but never had the stomach for torturing cats. On your view, the first guy is more moral than the second because he takes into account the feelings of the relevant group: human beings. His motives are purer and his actions less consequential.

ETA: it's also worth noting you're quick to point out the torturer could get caught. True. However, if you want to advocate a system that reduces "unnecessary suffering pain," then you would have to look seriously at veganism because as long as animals are raised on industrial farms, they will be mistreated.

The reason I didn't elaborate on my reasoning was I didn't believe it was essential to this point, and assumed you still remembered my earlier posts.

Here's your original answer:

I don't consider an unimplanted embryo to have the potential to become a human, which is where your idea falls down. It wouldn't be much of a choice.

We're talking about hundreds of embryos, hundreds of parents, and it was not given the slightest consideration.

As for the inconsistency you spotted, you should realize it stems from your assumption that I don't consider embryos worthy of concern. You're not completely wrong; I would choose one five-year old over one embryo, but in the question here, an important factor is the mothers (and fathers). Twelve grieving mothers and twelve dead babies (or stillbirths, if you like) can well be considered worse than one dead child and one grieving mother. This is indeed what I did.

I don't buy it. Maybe that's uncharitable, but it seems like you're making this up as you go along, inventing reasons after the fact to protect those you arbitrarily want to protect. Morality, like rationality, strives for impartiality.

The importance of built identity is something we disagree on. It's also a problematic concept when it comes to animals; I'm not willing to buy the claim that a cow builds much more identity after the first time it stands up on shaky legs. (I also don't care much about an identity of a being incapable of understanding there's such a thing as identity.)

If the bold parenthetical is consistently applied, then it rules out classes of humans.

To push the analogy a bit further, what if the comatose patient was known to have lost all memory?

If a person irrevocably loses all of their memory, then that person is no more; she's been replaced with a new being who may or may not have highly similar dispositions. The law has not caught up with the recent thinking of bioethicists. Peter Singer has a paper where he says X puts Z into a persistent vegetative state. Then Y comes along and kills Z. According to Singer, if anything, and I agree, the law should come down more harshly on X than Y because, for all intents and purposes, X ended the life that matters.

I suggest it's you who should tread lightly here. Have you actually spoken to a woman with a miscarriage, especially late in pregnancy?

What difference should that make?

The emotional attachment is not comparable to a child born alive, but to assume it's negligible, which it seems to me you're doing, is either very ignorant or very lacking in empathy.

Where do I imply a miscarriage is "negligible"?

Here's the quote in question:

You do not want to go down this road. Funerals for five year-olds are very different than miscarriages. Furthermore, I would not be surprised that a woman who miscarries is more likely to "try again," than someone who loses a five year-old.

This wasn't directed to you. As for Kevin, the moment he respond to my arguments, I'll responds to him. I suspect he has me on ignore, though.

No kidding, and as I said, you'd have more luck addressing it directly to him.

 

[BTMO]

Just an update.

I am loading the car up at the moment. I am heading off to the hills for a few days to spread some carnage amongst the local fallow deer population....

 

[tsig]

Just an update.

I am loading the car up at the moment. I am heading off to the hills for a few days to spread some carnage amongst the local fallow deer population....

You realize that if the deer had guns and could shoot back...it would be a lot more exciting?

 

[Bill Thompson]

I have an excuse.

Animals (other than human) taste better than humans because human meat would not be approved by the FDA because of all the chemical preservitives we feed ourselves.

That is my excuse for eating the animals. It is because they are approved by the FDA and human meat would not be approved.

Oh, yes, one more thing. Animals don't make as much as a comotion and don't threaten legal action when you take them to the slaughterhouse like people do.

 

[Bill Thompson]

According to the Bible the Good Lord gave mankind permission to use animals as food.

Dude.

According to the Bible you can see the whole world from a mountain top.

According to the Bible something appearing in the sky can be seen by the whole world.

If you want to know how wacky the bible is, check out the brick testament and skeptics annotated bible.

 

[cienaños]

*snip*

No, they have an interest in continuing to live. It's certainly better to kill animals (human and non-human) when they're not conscious, but it denies the freedom to experience their lives. An individual is their identity. If you could upload a person's brain architecture and memories into a computer (as in, say The 6th Day) then it would be immoral to destroy the software containing an identity. Organisms at the beginning of their life (e.g. an embryo) lack an identity, and do not live under the threat of identity death.

*snip*

As do humans. Humans are the better predator, end of story. What's the confusion again?

 

[Radrook]

Ownership? Completely off subject here, but are you actually suggesting slavery to an alien life form? Does the notion that we were somehow created by this thing actually make any difference?

(added) If I create a motor vehicle, it does not owe me any ethical requirement to run. The only way it will function in the way that I want it to is if I design it right. There is no moral way in which it "owes" me the decency to function in the way I want it to.

It would make a great difference if we are held accountable for how we manage the property.
The biblical view is that we are mere assigned caretakers of the earth and liable to its owner.


The Book of Revelation at Ch. 11 v 18 tells us that "he will bring to ruin those ruining the earth",

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Blatant speciesism? That is amazing coming from someone who thinks it "likely" that insects are mindless automata so it is OK to kill them. I draw the line between humans and other animals. You draw the line between animals that you think are likely to have conciousness and those likely to be automata. Somehow you believe that your distinction is a moral one and mine is not.

Absolutely. Speciesism is as silly as racism or sexism - it's judging an entity by an irrelevant criterion. Whereas judging an entity on its actual behaviour or intelligence is perfectly relevant.

We keep doing it, but you keep claiming "No fair! You can't use THAT arguement!" It's looking a little childish now.

This is quite ironic, because the problem is that you keep presenting terrible justifications for killing things for food, and then you complain "Waaaah! I gave you five terrible justifications and you rejected them all! Clearly this shows you are childish! A mature person would have accepted at least one of my terrible justifications!".

An adult would go away and come back with a good justification, or change their views. A child complains that the task is too hard and that it should get a gimme for trying.

The people in the lifeboat would decide amoungst themselves what to do, because they are all humans. You suspect that I don't care about the suffering of deer? I stated otherwise and you don't believe me. You are entitled to your suspicions and we all know what they are worth.

Okay. Apart from shooting deer, what other concrete actions have you taken in your life to prevent animal suffering from natural events like winter?

I see, what's good for you is good for the universe and what's bad for you is bad for the universe and "because you're an intelligent, rational entity capable of understanding whole paragraphs at a time" we should just accept your wisdom as doctrine.

And we're all wrong because it smells bad to you and besides we want to skin live cats and kill the mentally disabled.

You're not arguing philosophy. Its all personal preferences and straw men.

Come back when you have some idea of what I have actually said and what philosophy is. Until then you don't merit a response.

The problem vegans have is that they need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can kill insects and pest rodents for pleasure/convenience but that we can't kill cows and pigs for pleasure/convenience.

Asked and answered, Cain and I have already presented exactly this.

Very simple. Even mentally disabled humans are more conscious, self-aware and intelligent than animals. As someone else said, if cows started to organize and ask for "rights", it would be another story.

Bollocks. There are mentally disabled humans permanently stuck at a mental level well below that of a smart chimpanzee or Alex the Parrot. Those humans are flat out cleaning up their own bowel movements, let alone organising protest movements.

You really see no difference between killing a farm animal to feed people, and torturing a pet out of sheer, gratuitous cruelty? Really?

You're not killing an animal to feed people: try to keep up. Those people would be fed anyway, and fed in a more energy-efficient manner, regardless of whether an animal died. You're killing animals to create a pleasant taste sensation when you put them in your mouth.

Until you understand that you're arguing a concept that's subjective and man-made as if it was objective and inherent in nature, you will never get outside of that circle you're spinning around.

I've bolded the idiotic straw man that you persist in posting despite repeated correction on that exact point.

Already answered. Allowing this sort of thing to happen would be detrimental to society.

If what benefits society is what defines moral good, then killing off the elderly and the mentally ill as the Nazis did is morally good. As a moral rule that attempt falls at the first hurdle.

Excuse me, but that is what morals are. Please describe to me any ethic whose use does not either promote the cohesion of human society, or help our ability to function as a group (I mean other than your own silly arguments here).

Yeah, I think you can see for yourself what you did there. "Prove that anyone has ever had the moral idea than animals deserve moral consideration before - but the arguments you have already posted to that effect don't count!". Sorry, but you don't get to magically exclude every philosopher from Bentham onwards by personal fiat.

No, it's not a tu quoque because I am not arguing that your moral system is wrong. The point is that you being aggressive and dismissive of other viewpoints is based on you accusing people of doing things you are doing.

So as far as you know eating reptiles are compatible with a vegan diet?

I have to say I never really worried about it. If I was stuck on a desert island with nothing to eat but an equally-available supply of lizards and mice then I'd appreciate access to the relevant neurological information to try to take a stab at which I should eat first all else being equal. However since that hasn't happened yet and non-animal food sources which are adequate to human nutritional needs are available it hasn't exactly been at the top of my philosophical to-do list.

What's that got to do with criticising people for presenting arguments for meat-eating which are flat-out stupid, and which a moment's dispassionate critical reflection would reveal to be flat-out stupid?

 

[volatile]

You really see no difference between killing a farm animal to feed people, and torturing a pet out of sheer, gratuitous cruelty? Really?

In circumstances such as most of us on this thread find ourselves, where a varied, nutritionally-complete vegan diet is as readily available as an omnivorous one, can you explain to me the difference as you see it? Kevin touched upon this obliquely in his reply to this, but I'd like to ask you directly.

You don't need to eat meat - that vegans exist and live long, healthy lives is testament to that. So why is killing animals for food not gratuitous, by your criteria?

 

[volatile]

I have to say I never really worried about it. If I was stuck on a desert island with nothing to eat but an equally-available supply of lizards and mice then I'd appreciate access to the relevant neurological information to try to take a stab at which I should eat first all else being equal. However since that hasn't happened yet and non-animal food sources which are adequate to human nutritional needs are available it hasn't exactly been at the top of my philosophical to-do list.

What's that got to do with criticising people for presenting arguments for meat-eating which are flat-out stupid, and which a moment's dispassionate critical reflection would reveal to be flat-out stupid?

Exactly.

 

[lionking]

You don't need to eat meat - that vegans exist and live long, healthy lives is testament to that. So why is killing animals for food not gratuitous, by your criteria?

Do you know what "gratuitous" means?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Rearranging some text for topical clarity:

By misquoting I mean "value of life" in your written comments, which I said can be rephrased "the alleged value of life," or if you prefer, "questions of which lives matter and why/why not." Embryos are fair game. If I started a topic on abortion, then you would probably say it's a mistake to bring up animal comparisons because of the unavoidable implications.

Yeah, sure. Your ability to read stuff I've never written and use it to prove my stupidity continues to leave me in awe.

On Brutalizing Effects:


It's more coherent argument from a vegan point of view, but a silly argument nevertheless.

No, it really isn't. It's perfectly logical if you start from my premises. By the way, could you explain, in simple terms, how do you define which animals have rights and which don't? I assume there's a clear, unambiguous line that divides the animal kingdom in half.

We argued cows suffering/feeling pain earlier where you had to resort to wordplay that is too clumsy to be described as Orwellian; closer to Bush-speak, and even then not always easy to maintain the lie as on at least one occasion you misspoke the truth. I don't think that's worth any more effort. Instead let's look at why your intuition is mistaken:

If you must accuse me of silly crimes against the art of debating, at least bother to quote the posts you refer to. Otherwise this just looks like childish babble without any substance to it.

Billions of animals are killed in the U.S. every year. That's an incomprehensibly high figure; the vast majority of humans are just not equipped with brains capable of understanding it. Given the sheer numbers, abuse is inescapable.

Ah, so now the reason I should be vegan isn't the fact that I kill animals, but the "fact" that "abuse is inescapable"? Well, if you want to shift the argument there, fine, but that means accepting the killing itself is okay. Otherwise, I can argue that it's far more likely we'll be able to make farms as humane as possible than stop meat-farming in it's entirety. At least we can imagine a way to reach my scenario, which is more than can be said of your world without cows.

"The death of one man is tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic."

Which is, of course, a lie.

There are people starving right now, and yes, the thought of this reality might pain people, images even more so, which is why people change the channel and do no think about it. You're engaged in a deeply self-deluded project if you think you can square this circle.

What are you saying? That we'll never be able to stop people from starving, and thus shouldn't care about it? Or that people simply don't care about starving people, and that is perfectly acceptable?

When it comes to hiring baby-sitters, parents do bring aboard people who have done terrible things, but are normal by all outward appearances. They decline to hire socially awkward people who are otherwise mentally fit.

This has nothing to do with my argument. The argument showed we have good reason not to want secret-cat-torturing psychopaths mingling in our society, so not accepting secret-cat-torture is perfectly reasonable.

It's also instructive your example involves one person torturing a cat; what if it was a CEO who profited from torturing millions of cats?

Is there such a CEO? If he does, then yes, I consider what he does immoral.

These are terrible arguments, and they can go both ways. What if a society delights in torturing convicts? You also overlook the morality of lying--

You're misunderstanding something about society here. A society doesn't "delight" or "want"; it's members do, but not usually the same things. What matters is not the desires of the society's members - from a moral point of view, not even the majority's desire - but what is best for the society (as in: promotes survival and well-being within the society more than other alternatives). Also, the society I refer to includes every single human being on the planet. There are no isolated societies with different rules. (Well, I guess there may still be some primitive tribes, but we can just leave them alone on their islands.)

I can't think of a situation where torturing a convict would benefit the society in any way. Can you? If it's reasonable, I'll probably approve of it in that special case.

As for lying, I consider lying a form of rhetoric. There's nothing immoral about it, just as there's nothing immoral about hammers, knives or hyperbole. Each of those can be used to perpetrate both moral and immoral acts.

It's true that most people want animals treated humanely. But it's also true that people want meat to cost as little possible. The optimal solution from a business stand point is TELL people that animals are treated humanely, and then to do whatever maximizes profits. This is probably the default position for business.

Source?

In radio people are asked if they want music stations that play a wide variety of music. "Oh, yes, wide variety -- that's me." Lots of market research supporting that attitude. So what did owners do? They started stations that played a wide mix... and people tuned out. In fact, listeners really do want to hear the same 12 songs. The ideal solution for a station is to SAY they play the biggest variety and then broadcast the dozen songs that are currently popular.

Sure. But I don't see how the laws of market economy matter when discussing morals. Like I've said, it's not what individual members of the society want, but what is best for the society as a whole that matters in moral considerations.

And here's the problem with your position: there's no great difference between animals being treated humanely and people believing animals are treated humanely. Welcome to Bush World.

Yes. If every human being on the planet believes animals are being treated humanely, then it doesn't really matter if there really is some animal torture going on. That would be fine, though obviously it's an impossible situation.

Surely you don't claim people in today's world don't know of the inhumane treatment of animals on many farms? Or that it would be possible to just hide this from everyone without changing the actual treatment? "Everyone" including all the farm workers, of course.

This is not a clear answer. First, you're infantilizing the cat torturer.

No such thing. Adults are also affected and changed by their own actions and the responses of the environment. A person who has learned it's okay to hurt cats for fun has lost a part of their humanity.

Second, the torturer might be certain he can get away with it -- his power over animals is intoxicating -- and he realizes that if anyone ever learns of this behavior it will cause harm (evoking feelings of sympathy). So he keeps it a secret, and since the difference in the human psyche between 23 and 24 is so tiny, he keeps at it.

This could happen, though I disagree that the effect is as tiny as you think. Still, why would this make it moral? Is it moral to steal from a huge supermarket if you don't get caught? After all, there is no real victim there.

Alternatively, you have a person who is malicious but never had the stomach for torturing cats. On your view, the first guy is more moral than the second because he takes into account the feelings of the relevant group: human beings. His motives are purer and his actions less consequential.

Do you never get tired of putting words in my mouth? First of all, when did I ever say I care about "purity of motives"? The concept seems silly to me. Motives don't matter in moral questions; only the actual actions and what they're meant to accomplish.

The consequences are important, sure. If an action has very little consequence to anyone, it probably wasn't immoral. But morality isn't really a gradient. It's a line, one that I draw at the point where actions, either indirectly or directly, cause harm to other human beings. (Of course, what matters when evaluating the morality of an action is what the perpetrator thought the consequences would be, not the actual consequences.) So

ETA: it's also worth noting you're quick to point out the torturer could get caught. True. However, if you want to advocate a system that reduces "unnecessary suffering pain," then you would have to look seriously at veganism because as long as animals are raised on industrial farms, they will be mistreated.

Why do you keep doing the suffering pain thing? Do you enjoy insulting me? Does it make you feel smarter, or just all warm and fuzzy inside?

And as I said above, the argument "it's impossible to stop animal cruelty as long as there are industrial farms" is a step back for you. It's a far more likely situation than a world where no one eats meat.

Here's your original answer:


We're talking about hundreds of embryos, hundreds of parents, and it was not given the slightest consideration.

I did say unimplanted embryos aren't the same. These embryos would not develop into children on their own, and I seriously doubt the parents could have much emotional attachment to them at this point.

Honestly, it seems to me you're kind of desperate in trying to find something in my posts to attack. Even if I did make a typo in an earlier post, it doesn't really prove you right. Heck, I could even change my opinions during the thread; I actually did, in part, after Cavemonster posted his theory. If you want to prove something, you'll have to do better than "Look! Here, in this post several pages ago, you said something that could be seen as kind of contradictory to what you're saying now, if taken out of context and looked at maliciously!"

I don't buy it. Maybe that's uncharitable, but it seems like you're making this up as you go along, inventing reasons after the fact to protect those you arbitrarily want to protect. Morality, like rationality, strives for impartiality.

This about sums up our entire argument. You just don't believe there could be a coherent moral system that allowed eating animals but not babies. And lo! You indeed can't comprehend any such systems when they're presented to you.

If the bold parenthetical is consistently applied, then it rules out classes of humans.

Well lah di daa. It's not like we've had this conversation before. Could it be that I've indeed agreed with this multiple times, then proceeded to mention I still grant those humans moral protection for other reasons? Nah, surely not, after all, I'm just as dumb omnivore.

If a person irrevocably loses all of their memory, then that person is no more; she's been replaced with a new being who may or may not have highly similar dispositions. The law has not caught up with the recent thinking of bioethicists. Peter Singer has a paper where he says X puts Z into a persistent vegetative state. Then Y comes along and kills Z. According to Singer, if anything, and I agree, the law should come down more harshly on X than Y because, for all intents and purposes, X ended the life that matters.

Fair enough. So we can't be sure whether or not the comatose patient has an interest in living. Okay to kill or not?

What difference should that make?

Just that you're assuming you know something about a subject, despite not having any experience. And this is a subject where uninformed opinions can be very hurtful to people who do have personal experiences.

Where do I imply a miscarriage is "negligible"?

Here's the quote in question:

You do not want to go down this road. Funerals for five year-olds are very different than miscarriages. Furthermore, I would not be surprised that a woman who miscarries is more likely to "try again," than someone who loses a five year-old.

Perhaps "negligible" was a bit strong, but you do seem to imply that miscarriage wouldn't have that much of an effect on a woman. The context is also important; I had just made the point that a miscarriage is a great blow to a woman, to which you responded. The above quote seems to be clearly meant to disagree with my view, so it seemed to me you were saying the effects weren't much, or were "negligible".

If you meant to just say a miscarriage is a big deal, but losing a five-year old even bigger, then sure, you're right. But if that was your point, you really could have worded the response better.

No kidding, and as I said, you'd have more luck addressing it directly to him.

No, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't.

 

[Mirrorglass]

This thread has been going on so long, I thought it would be prudent to sum up the arguments presented so far. And what better way to do it than song!

(Extra points if you know the tunes, spoiler at bottom for those who don't.)



The Vegan's song



Favour wheat
It isn't moral killing just for meat
when there's so much more nice things to eat
It's really not, much of a feat

Obviously
Animals all suffer needlessly
you can't reconcile that rationally
so stop arguing, uselessly

Why must you be dicks?
I don't know, it's really lame
Don't you see that pigs
and us humans are the same

Nevermind
You're a bunch of imbecils I find
Go ahead and keep on being blind,
Just don't expect, me to be kind






The Meat-Eaters Song In Response

Lead: (speaking) I never wanted to be a forum philosopher anyway. I wanted to be a butcher!
Tending to mighty animals as they grow on the ranches in the heart of Texas!
The chicken! The lamb! The mighty cow! The smell of sawdust! The moos of mighty cows! With my best girly by my side!

And we'd sing.. sing... sing!

Lead: I'm an omnivore and I'm okay, I eat my meat and I feel no shame!
Chorus: He's an omnivore and he's okay, he eats his meat and he feels no shame!

Lead:
I butcher cows, I bleed them dry, I chop and eat their rump!
I feel no guilt about it, since cows are really dumb!

Chorus:
He butchers cows, he bleeds them dry, he chops and eats their rump!
He feels no guilt about it, since cows are really dumb!

He's an omnivore and he's okay, he eats his meat and he feels no shame!

Lead:
I love my steak, my chops and ribs, the sweetbread and the hearts!
I find that meat is vital, in culinary arts!

Chorus:
He loves his steak, his chops and ribs, the sweetbread and the hearts!
He finds that meat is vital, in culinary arts!

He's an omnivore and he's okay, he eats his meat and he feels no shame!

Lead:
I torture cats, I kill for fun, no morals in the wild!
The meat most appetizing, comes from a tasty child!

Chorus:
(sounds of disgust and leaving)

Lead:
-comes from a tasty child!

Girl: Oh, Beavis! I thought your moral views were internally consistent! (Runs off crying)

Cue the angry letters.

Vegan Song:


Omnivore Song:

 

[volatile]

Do you know what "gratuitous" means?

Of course. Do you?

Is there a coherent and consistent way to define it that includes dinner but excludes killing animals "just for fun"?

ETA: Just to get my facts straight, Answers.com has "Unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified" as the definition. "Unjustified" certainly seems to cover meat eating - in fact, one meateater has already posted in this thread that "No justification is needed". It is possible and easy to live as a vegan for most of us in the developed West, and there are no apparent downsides apart for those slavishly addicted to the habitual taste of flesh. So, in what way does meat-eating not fit the definition of "gratuitous" as defined?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, what about my assertion that killing animals is unavoidable if you intend to live on Earth?

Sorry for missing this one.

As I stated earlier, I've got no problems with killing which is necessary for survival, or which is unavoidable. Killing which is not necessary or unavoidable is up for moral questioning.

 

[Drudgewire]

Absolutely. Speciesism is as silly as racism or sexism - it's judging an entity by an irrelevant criterion. Whereas judging an entity on its actual behaviour or intelligence is perfectly relevant.

I once had my beer stolen by aardvarks, and stereotyping be damned I hate every last one of them.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Absolutely. Speciesism is as silly as racism or sexism - it's judging an entity by an irrelevant criterion. Whereas judging an entity on its actual behaviour or intelligence is perfectly relevant.

No, it's intelligencism and behaviorism and it is just as bad as any other -ism we can make up. If we allow intelligence to be the criteria, then it seems you are one advocating killing the dumb.

This is quite ironic, because the problem is that you keep presenting terrible justifications for killing things for food, and then you complain "Waaaah! I gave you five terrible justifications and you rejected them all! Clearly this shows you are childish! A mature person would have accepted at least one of my terrible justifications!".

An adult would go away and come back with a good justification, or change their views. A child complains that the task is too hard and that it should get a gimme for trying.

Of course, you get to be the judge of good and terrible arguements. Wait, that seems like an opinion too.

Okay. Apart from shooting deer, what other concrete actions have you taken in your life to prevent animal suffering from natural events like winter?

My hunting license fees go to pay for my state's department of natural resources. They do conservation work all over the state. I pay leasing fees to maintain hundreds of acres of natural habitats for all kinds of wildlife. I even plant food plots in those areas that deer and other wildlife eat all year round. I planted certain flowers and flowering trees around my home that support local hummingbirds. I don't even eat hummingbirds. I'm thinking of installing a bat house on a tall pine in my back yard, but that's probably selfish because I want them to eat bugs.

Professionally, I work to mitigate and prevent pollution of our nations waters. I have devoted my career to engineering cleaner environments for man and beast alike. Much of what I do restores urban and suburban drainage channels to natural streams that provide habitats to a wide variety of wildlife. But that probably doesn't count because I get paid to do that.

 

[Thurkon]

Around and around we go.
The good old shift-the-burden-of-proof strategy, I see. "I can kill microbes. Everyone agrees on that. Therefore it's up to you to prove I can't kill bonobos and dolphins".

I think the burden of proof to come up with a coherent moral theory is on the people killing things for food, or the supporters of that practice. You're the one killing things, or having them killed on your behalf, I think it's up to you to justify your own behaviour.

First of all, take a little time to formulate a coherent argument. Don't formulate some ridiculous imaginary stance that you believe I have and argue against that. Ever hear of a straw man? Look at that first paragraph.

As for the second paragraph, you're gravely mistaken. My whole point is that we are all killing things when we eat. It's a necessary evil to survive. You are the one who either (a) attributes more value to animal life than vegetable life, and if so, please provide why this is a universal truth, or (b) for some strange reason don't believe vegetation is actually alive? Seriously, what is your logic in stating "You're the one killing things"? Do you actually believe plant life is not alive? Why is animal life more important? Answer this question and stop dancing about it.