What is your excuse for killing animals?

[nois forme]

I wonder, is there ONE single herbivore on this forum who isn't full of holier-than-thou sanctimony? I know not all vegetarians are so self-righteous, so there has to be some here.

Why yes, there is. Personally, I would never insist, suggest or even vaguely imply what another's diet should consist of, unless a friend of mine had a hankering for gasoline. And really, what would be the point even if I felt the urge? But I don't.

Fact is, I don't consume animals purely because of guilt that I feel when I did. Self indulgent, largely unjustifiable guilt. It is what it is. I find my diet, frankly, unnatural (in a manner of speaking - without getting into that whole 'can we as animals actually do anything unnatural?' discussion). But it's also been rather simple for me, not much of an inconvenience (less so apparently, than the guilt).

Heh. Been following this thread on and off for days, and didn't think I'd anything to say until I saw that question. I feel like how a 'liberal' Christian in a room full of Westboro Baptists must feel.

Incidentally, I'm vegetarian, not vegan if that's relevant. My brother is also an avid hunter and has a collection of heads on his wall. I find it...surreal perhaps. That's about it. I also understand that he has a profound respect for anything he kills, as difficult (impossible?) as that may be to understand for the more...fervent posters here.

But I have babbled. Carry on...

 

[cienaños]

Why yes, there is. Personally, I would never insist, suggest or even vaguely imply what another's diet should consist of, unless a friend of mine had a hankering for gasoline. And really, what would be the point even if I felt the urge? But I don't.

Fact is, I don't consume animals purely because of guilt that I feel when I did. Self indulgent, largely unjustifiable guilt. It is what it is. I find my diet, frankly, unnatural (in a manner of speaking - without getting into that whole 'can we as animals actually do anything unnatural?' discussion). But it's also been rather simple for me, not much of an inconvenience (less so apparently, than the guilt).

Heh. Been following this thread on and off for days, and didn't think I'd anything to say until I saw that question. I feel like how a 'liberal' Christian in a room full of Westboro Baptists must feel.

Incidentally, I'm vegetarian, not vegan if that's relevant. My brother is also an avid hunter and has a collection of heads on his wall. I find it...surreal perhaps. That's about it. I also understand that he has a profound respect for anything he kills, as difficult (impossible?) as that may be to understand for the more...fervent posters here.

But I have babbled. Carry on...

Oh it's relevant. Do you consume fish? Dairy?

Because if you do, you're bad, very bad. Heathen.

 

[nois forme]

Oh it's relevant. Do you consume fish? Dairy?

Because if you do, you're bad, very bad. Heathen.

Yes, I assumed as much! I have no problem downing a tall glass of milk with my omelet. 'octo lacto' I think the more pretentious call it? No fish.

Yes I am a bad, bad man.

 

[stilicho]

I feel like how a 'liberal' Christian in a room full of Westboro Baptists must feel.

Incidentally, I'm vegetarian, not vegan if that's relevant.

I have friends who have chosen either of these routes and are not nearly so full of themselves as the "ascending moral arc" types. When I visit them, I eat their food and it's really a lot tastier than I'd thought it would be.

The title of this thread isn't about dietary choices but it turned into one. Could a vegan cat-owner allow their ailing and aged pet to be euthanised?

 

[nois forme]

Could a vegan cat-owner allow their ailing and aged pet to be euthanised?

I'm can't speak for a vegan (though I would imagine so), but vegetarians certainly can. I've killed three cats over the years when nothing was left to them but a slow, painful death. Though it was excruciating, I don't have an ounce of regret.

 

[cienaños]

I'm can't speak for a vegan (though I would imagine so), but vegetarians certainly can. I've killed three cats over the years when nothing was left to them but a slow, painful death. Though it was excruciating, I don't have an ounce of regret.

You just revealed yourself.

Now you gotta start all over and create a whole new account. Dang.

 

[BenBurch]

But what if suffering is FUN to inflict? Maybe we should torture those cows a bit more?

Seriously, why do you think the cows suffer when their brains are destroyed by the pneumatic gun?

 

[dio]

You just revealed yourself.

Now you gotta start all over and create a whole new account. Dang.

Yep, no way around it. Right now he looks like a brutal animal serial killer that drinks their secretions and eats their embryos.

 

[Manopolus]

Yep, no way around it. Right now he looks like a brutal animal serial killer that drinks their secretions and eats their embryos.

I've killed hundreds of cattle, maybe a thousand chickens, three deer, quite a few pigeons, all kinds of insects and worms, and I've pulled baby birds out of nests in my barn and gave them to my cat to eat (which he absolutely loved).

I seem to look a little worse to the animal rights folks, but hey... I'm pretty sure I disagree with them, anyway.

(added) In my defense on the bit with the baby birds... Mainly I was tearing down swallow nests in the barn... they tend to be a nuisance. They deficate everywhere... attack you when you get near the nests, etc. I didn't do it out of some sadistic impulse.

 

[cienaños]

I've killed hundreds of cattle, maybe a thousand chickens, three deer, quite a few pigeons, all kinds of insects and worms, and I've pulled baby birds out of nests in my barn and gave them to my cat to eat (which he absolutely loved).

I seem to look a little worse to the animal rights folks, but hey... I'm pretty sure I disagree with them, anyway.

(added) In my defense on the bit with the baby birds... Mainly I was tearing down swallow nests in the barn... they tend to be a nuisance. They deficate everywhere... attack you when you get near the nests, etc. I didn't do it out of some sadistic impulse.

Let's not jump to conclusions here. Felines must eat, just like us. Further, you suggest an element of amour in the imbibing of the birds. All I gotta say to that is, your cat is awesome. Mine's a wanker. Cute and cuddly as hell, but a wanker.

 

[stilicho]

I've killed hundreds of cattle, maybe a thousand chickens, three deer, quite a few pigeons, all kinds of insects and worms, and I've pulled baby birds out of nests in my barn and gave them to my cat to eat (which he absolutely loved).

I've evicted hornets from their home in my garage, denied rights of passage to deer through my yard, and expropriated the scavenging rights of raccoons on my property (which I occupied without their being signatories to any treaty).

The "ascending moral arc" of extending our sense of rights to animals who wouldn't understand them anyhow seems a little crazy. What are the deer, hornets, and raccoons bringing to the negotiation table?

There's a possibility that our species might wind up right back in the soup with all the rest of the animals. Nothing I know about in natural selection suggests that we "must" keep our intellectual faculties. So this "ascending moral arc" is really a pretension of being really special and not subject to the same rules as other animals.

Now let's eat!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

We both draw a behavioral line. I didn't say where I draw the line is better than where you do. I said where you draw the line is no better than where I do. I'm not telling you to redraw your line. If you like it there it's fine with me. You are telling me you don't like where I draw my line. I told you why I draw my line where I do, and you said that's not good enough. I don't see that it's my arguement to make.

You haven't responded to my point at all. Discriminating between entities based on empirically verifiable characteristics possessed by the entity in question which are morally relevant seems to me to be the only rational way to so discriminate. Discriminating based on species membership, which has at best a highly imperfect correlation to morally relevant characteristics is as unjustifiable as discriminating based on skin colour or star sign.

Then you should consider using it in your arguement against my line placement.

Here's the thing: I just did exactly that. When I did so I was repeating exactly a point I have made at least twice previously and probably more often. The problem's not in my failure to use such arguments, it's in your failure to comprehend them.

It's always either/or with you. I kill deer because I enjoy the hunt. I kill deer because I enjoy eating them. I kill deer to prevent some of them from suffering. I kill deer to reduce property damage they do. This year I will also kill deer because it pisses you off. Can I have more than one reason to hunt deer or must I pick one and disregard the others?

I thought if we scratched the surface you'd turn out to be another one of the "I'm killing animals to piss off hippies!" crowd. I'm sorry to see I was right.

Funny how the people who think we are superior to irrational animals provide the best evidence of how very far we have to go until that will be true.

Can someone ask Kevin Lowe to take me off ignore please?

I don't have you on ignore, I just find your posts very unclear and confused, and don't particularly feel like engaging with you to figure out what your point is.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yup, it fails all right... because the example you have given isn't beneficial to society, not because my statement was wrong. Sure, it perhaps could help economically and functionally, but it fails in a very basic way. Society is all inclusive... it doesn't make exceptions and attack or exterminate its own membership without sufficient reason. Consider not only that the mentally ill or elderly might object to this policy, but those that care for them might, as well. To consider this morally "right" by my description of morality is patently ridiculous.

You are no longer talking about morality simply being "whatever is good for society" then. You're talking about morality being whatever is good for individuals within a society, or possible whatever is good for a certain specific kind of society (one that is all-inclusive and doesn't make exceptions).

It sounds to me like you just slid yourself over from being a social contractarian to being a utilitarian like myself, since that "all-inclusive" move looks exactly like the universalism inherent in utilitarian moral philosophy.

This is not what I was saying at all, and I think deep down you know it. My challenge was to find an ethic which we all accept which does not functionally serve the purpose of giving society greater cohesion or better function, specifically excluding "animal rights" since we don't all accept those arguments. Your earlier attempt involving Nazis fails miserably. Please note that this is consistent with modern sociology in its description of "social mores."

So you're asking me to find a moral rule which:
1. We all accept.
2. Which can't possibly be construed to improve a society's cohesion or function.

I'm pretty sure that finding a rule which fits (1) is impossible since moral nihilists exist, so I'm happy to say that your challenge is impossible. Now what?

 

[Manopolus]

You are no longer talking about morality simply being "whatever is good for society" then. You're talking about morality being whatever is good for individuals within a society, or possible whatever is good for a certain specific kind of society (one that is all-inclusive and doesn't make exceptions).

It sounds to me like you just slid yourself over from being a social contractarian to being a utilitarian like myself, since that "all-inclusive" move looks exactly like the universalism inherent in utilitarian moral philosophy.

Not exactly. I think you are still failing to understand. What is good for one is good for the whole. A society which is constantly at war with its members is dysfunctional. The conflict I presented with your Nazi example is not only detrimental to individuals, but also to the peace and cohesion of the whole society. The Nazi extremes were doomed to fail eventually even if they WON the war. I would say that the war, itself (and the corresponding nationalism) contributed to the Nazi views being accepted within its hierarchy to a degree. In the long term, it was doomed to fail. My position is exactly where it has always been... unless you have a quibble with my becoming more specific.

So you're asking me to find a moral rule which:
1. We all accept.
2. Which can't possibly be construed to improve a society's cohesion or function.

I'm pretty sure that finding a rule which fits (1) is impossible since moral nihilists exist, so I'm happy to say that your challenge is impossible. Now what?

How about just finding an ethic which most conscientious beings (including myself) agree upon which fit the criteria? There's no need to include such an extreme position.

 

[stilicho]

Funny how the people who think we are superior to irrational animals provide the best evidence of how very far we have to go until that will be true.

Did he really say that humans are superior to the other animals? Would that be an attainable goal?

I'd really like to be the fly on the wall when you make up your New Years resolution lists.

 

[Complexity]

Kevin Lowe - How do you feel about my asking for recipes for pentacostals?

Also, do you have any recipes for pentacostals? Few have suggestions, beyond looking for ones for tongue.

They keep coming to my door, jabbering away. Can't understand a word. Have a freezer full now.

 

[Radrook]

Whenever I try to live on veggies alone I'm hungry all the time. Only meat seems to do the job. That's my excuse.

 

[cienaños]

cienanos:
Can someone ask Kevin Lowe to take me off ignore please?

I don't have you on ignore, I just find your posts very unclear and confused, and don't particularly feel like engaging with you to figure out what your point is.

What a relief. Thanks Kevin Lowe, not the handshake I was hoping for, but I'll take it. The important thing is we've connected. To begin. I can see how one might struggle to get their head around "first came nature, then consciousness, then morality." Temporally speaking.

Let us use metaphor. Take the cow.

First came the cow, then the slaughterhouse, then the steak on my plate.

1 The steak, though derived from the cow, in its current steak-form, does not exist in the cow, is not the same as the cow, is not - the cow.

2 Still, the derivative nature in this relationship absolutely does exist. The strength of this link, essentially, is what you are arguing. The self-aware steak might say, "We owe it to them dang it! For. We. Are. Self-aware. Steak."

3 The fact is that others in this thread can acknowledge that same link, yet, at the same time, have a wider comprehension of the ecosystem as a whole, in that all life feeds all other life. To live.

I'll pause here, hoping for a response.

If any of this is "unclear and confused," to anyone out there, I'd appreciate any feedback or tips. I really do want to be clear.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not exactly. I think you are still failing to understand. What is good for one is good for the whole. A society which is constantly at war with its members is dysfunctional. The conflict I presented with your Nazi example is not only detrimental to individuals, but also to the peace and cohesion of the whole society. The Nazi extremes were doomed to fail eventually even if they WON the war. I would say that the war, itself (and the corresponding nationalism) contributed to the Nazi views being accepted within its hierarchy to a degree. In the long term, it was doomed to fail. My position is exactly where it has always been... unless you have a quibble with my becoming more specific.

I don't buy it. For most of our history slavery, the oppression of women, caste systems, wars of aggression and all sorts of other things I consider immoral were routine. If they were really dysfunctional, as opposed to being efficient but immoral, why did so many societies have such institutions?

How about just finding an ethic which most conscientious beings (including myself) agree upon which fit the criteria? There's no need to include such an extreme position.

I'm just trying to engage with the actual arguments you write down. Okay, so now you're challenging me to come up with a moral rule which:

1. Most conscientious beings including you agree on, and
2. Which can't possibly be construed by you to improve a society's cohesion or function.

Once again you're presenting an impossible challenge as if it had some meaning. All you've done is move the nonexistent goalposts.

Social cohesion is facilitated by observing any moral rule that most people agree on. That rule could be anything, moral or immoral, and you could still argue that it's better for social cohesion to observe that rule than not.

So now what? What point are you trying to prove anyway?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If any of this is "unclear and confused," to anyone out there, I'd appreciate any feedback or tips. I really do want to be clear.

Sorry, it's still word salad to me.