What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Complexity]

Well, there was this fly on the wrong side of the screen door (the inside), so I half-open the door and try to direct it to fly outside. After a few attempts, I inadvertantly squashed it on the side of the door. I was trying to be nice.

The fly probably thought you were toying with it, tantalizing it with freedom, only to crush its hopes (all too literally) in one fit of atavistic brutality.

So, how did it taste?

 

[Robo Sapien]

So, are lions considered unethical creatures because they eat zebras? Or it is just we that are unethical because we have a choice in the matter?

 

[tsig]

Hey wait. Is that a dig on me?


I really can't boil it down any further. I'm at a loss. I thought what I wrote was so basic a 10 year old would understand it.

My post:

"Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe
Sorry, it's still word salad to me."

tsig
By your own standards that's entirely your fault."

I posted this answer because upthread KL said it wasn't his fault if he was misunderstood.

Maybe a subtle parody? or a miscommunication?

 

[tsig]

The fly probably thought you were toying with it, tantalizing it with freedom, only to crush its hopes (all too literally) in one fit of atavistic brutality.

So, how did it taste?

Have to ask the frog.

 

[stilicho]

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?

None of these institutions or policies have anything to do with killing animals.

 

[stilicho]

So, are lions considered unethical creatures because they eat zebras? Or it is just we that are unethical because we have a choice in the matter?

If all our choices have an ethical element to them then these should be collected in a single volume--let's call it a Bible for simplicity's sake--enforced by a political authority--let's call him or her a cardinal--with violations brought before a judicial authority--let's call it The Inquisition.

 

[Complexity]

If all our choices have an ethical element to them then these should be collected in a single volume--let's call it a Bible for simplicity's sake--enforced by a political authority--let's call him or her a cardinal--with violations brought before a judicial authority--let's call it The Inquisition.

Yuck.

Let's not.

Therein lies evil.

 

[Cain]

It is obvious to me that you have never spent much time on a farm, nor have you ever studied the practices we use to kill the animals. The pain and distress that animals suffer on a farm is far less than they suffer in the wild. They don't have to search for their own food or go hungry in the winter when grass is more difficult to get to, and they are generally given shelter from the weather.

This is a terrible argument, though probably an obligatory one. You also seem unfamiliar with the context of my statement -- which involves taking Mirrorglass's premises to their logical conclusion, and on his view suffering pain is morally significant due to tortuous reasons that are too foolish to describe.

Now, granting your assumptions, let's agree that, generally speaking, life on the farm is not as bad as life in the wild. Can you see any problems with this view? Not yet? Well, how about another quote:

From what I have seen, these animals would have far more pain if they weren't cared for on a farm. As such, I just don't see any point to your argument.

And here it is -- the false dichotomy. Animals on farms would not otherwise exist in the wild.

I suppose you could argue that what would happen to them in the wild is not our fault, and not our problem. Where that fails is in that we are already talking about poinlessly injecting morality into nature in the case of your judgement of farming. It is completely natural for humans to eat meat. If you want to inject morals into it, you must also consider the alternatives that nature provides.

This is gratuitously false.

 

[Mirrorglass]

A rather meaningless comment, just a place-holder for a dodge.



Rather than respond to the argument, or document the differences, I suppose saying "No, it really isn't" is enough. In your mind. As for animal rights, I already offered non-arbitrary criteria, how that translates into dividing lines is not always clear, if only because our science is limited. There's some discussion with Kevin surrounding the continuum of life. Vegans should (and do) have a mechanism for distinguishing cows from carrots. Similarly, meat-eaters should have some mechanism to distinguish humans they wish to grants from mammals who do not; indeed, this is more pressing because we kill billions of animals a year. For gray areas, it probably makes sense to error on the side of safety.



I thought it was clear since you cried about it later on this same posting:





You've almost got it. What you do not understand about the argument I'm making here is that I'm carrying your premises to their logical conclusion, so of course I'm granting the assumption that it's OK to kill animals. What matters is the unnecessary suffering pain.

I do not think it's possible to eradicate meat-farming anymore than it's possible to eradicate homicide; somebody, somewhere will still do it. Making farming "as humane as possible" could mean at least a couple of things. Depending on however you wish to define "possible" I do not think "as humane as possible" can mean anything other than no farms.

I do not think most people are willing to give up animals on account of moral reasons. But if there were meat-alternatives grown in a lab, then that could be a game-changer. In any event, you should become a vegan to protest an industry where unnecessary pain occurs and will continue as long as people eat over some 200 pounds of meat a year.

On a million deaths as a statistic:


This is too glib. In all likelihood the person who uttered it intended his/her words as social commentary, not a moral position.



No, this section deals not with "ought" but "is" because your position critically depends upon on how people empathize. You seemed to have missed this point in subsequent comments (omitted here).



You're exchanging a terrible argument for something worse. There's too much to unpack here, everything from "society" to "well-being" and it's of almost no interest to me. I will merely note this as yet another shift in positions, inconsistent with view you have espoused so far. But thanks for wasting my time with the Kantian B.S.



This makes your "babble" comment from earlier sting.



In the case of the meat industry, look at its public relations department, large even by the standards of big business.



In other words, it doesn't matter since you admit you were BSing all along with the Kant stuff.



This is silly. According to the BS Kantian argument, the amount of abuse people perceive is what's morally important. So by that logic, it can -- and probably often is -- a better bet to trick people into believing abuses are not taking place than to actually reduce the number of abuses. But this is moot because that argument has been replaced by what's best for society, by which we mean all humans and mean "survival or well-being" -- which ever is more convenient at the moment.



You're clueless. Where did I say "purity of motives" matters to you? No, I was blocking escape routes, saying one could not resort to either motives or consequences. But of course you'd rather pretend to be a victim.



Yes, but it's perfectly reasonable to just assume "grieving" mothers and fathers when their implanted embryo dies on account of someone saving a five year-old.



It's only because your view of "suffering" has been so dishonest. So dishonest, in fact, that you could not keep up the charade. I do not keep a lot of goodwill for people who would have me believe something they do not.

Cain writes:


to which you "reply":


This isn't even a comment on what I'm saying. Maybe there's a rational argument distinguishing babies from chimps, or some such argument distinguishing whites from blacks. I'm pretty sure I haven't heard them though. It's not as though I was born and raised vegan either; I once bought into speciesist assumptions about the world.



Yes, and those reasons were found lacking. So... big deal.



Maybe you're assuming circumstances I am not. Did this guy lose all memory as a result of going into a coma, so his replacement identity never took experienced the world? In that case, then I suppose it doesn't matter, but I'm not sure how we could possibly have any clue until he came out of the coma. There are other problems about knowing whether or not he actually has permanent loss of all memories.

There's not really much more to say. I've given you my logical arguments. You've managed to misunderstand all of them. You've insulted me over and over again, dodging the points and avoiding actually progressing the discussion, all the while accusing me of the very intellectual dishonesty you've made your trademark. You have absolutely no intention of viewing your own position critically. You have a lot of malice towards people in general, which you are directing towards me and other people who disagree with you on a dietary stance. This isn't an argument, but a shouting match, and I have no desire to continue it.

Um, I do know a thing or two about miscarriage. On the advice of Professor Oswalt, I paid a skinhead fifty bucks to punch around a girl who claimed I was the father. I'll never do that again because if it had turned out I was the father, I would've had to swing the finances for a special-needs kid.

And that's about enough. As said above, any discussion about morals with a person who'd do something like that is worth less than discussion with a wolf. Previously, I was interested in knowing how your mind worked and reached the conclusions it did. Now I'm just disgusted. With that, I'm signing out of this argument.

If you want to take that as proof that you've "won" this argument, as I expect you will, feel free. I hope it makes you feel better about yourself.

 

[Cain]

Well, I nominated my comment. It needed slight editing since, well, who could've guessed it was so *********** legend. That's what the kids say these days, right? Legend. It was so *********** beast. At this point the voting process is nothing but a formality.

 

[Robo Sapien]

If all our choices have an ethical element to them then these should be collected in a single volume--let's call it a Bible for simplicity's sake--enforced by a political authority--let's call him or her a cardinal--with violations brought before a judicial authority--let's call it The Inquisition.

Awesome idea, and lets elect Ted Nugent to be its leader.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So, are lions considered unethical creatures because they eat zebras? Or it is just we that are unethical because we have a choice in the matter?

We are unethical of course, because we speak for the Earth. Didn't Kevin tell you that? (And of course, by "we" I actually mean Kevin Lowe. Whatever he says goes, goes)

 

[Manopolus]

This is a terrible argument, though probably an obligatory one. You also seem unfamiliar with the context of my statement -- which involves taking Mirrorglass's premises to their logical conclusion, and on his view suffering pain is morally significant due to tortuous reasons that are too foolish to describe.

Really, keep your opinions of other people's intelligence to yourself. Do you really think that insulting others is going to help your cause? Grow up. This is why I have tended to avoid even addressing you for the most part. Your use of language seems to be designed to be as insulting as possible. Hint: use fewer opinionated adjectives.

Now, granting your assumptions, let's agree that, generally speaking, life on the farm is not as bad as life in the wild. Can you see any problems with this view? Not yet? Well, how about another quote:



And here it is -- the false dichotomy. Animals on farms would not otherwise exist in the wild.

But we don't live in a world where animals were never on farms. We live here and now. The question of a practical solution is quite pertinant. This is not a dichotomy, but a practicality based on the current situation.

This is gratuitously false.

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[Cain]

Really, keep your opinions of other people's intelligence to yourself. Do you really think that insulting others is going to help your cause? Grow up. This is why I have tended to avoid even addressing you for the most part. Your use of language seems to be designed to be as insulting as possible. Hint: use fewer opinionated adjectives.

I was describing arguments, not people. Furthermore, I'm not sorry for calling your argument terrible. You should be sorry for making a terrible argument.

But we don't live in a fantasy world where animals were never on farms. We live here and now. The question of a practical solution is quite pertinant. This is not a dichotomy, but a practicality based on the current situation.

You still don't get it, do you? You claimed animals lead better lives on the farm than if left to the wild, but that's never been an option, so slap your knuckles twice to waken from "fantasy world" (don't worry, Cyborg's an incompetent enough VP). I love this **** where people try to reprimand me for **** they do.

I have no idea what you mean by "the question of a practical solution" but I'll take your word that it's "pertinant."

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Long story short:

* OP requested our excuse to him for killing animals
* We provided it
* He and his supporters didn't like it
* We don't care and continue eating the animals
* The end

 

[Trent Wray]

If we killed humans for food as well would "all things be equal" then? What if we raised and bred humans for this purpose, even taking the leftover parts no one would eat and making animal mash out of it and feed it right back to the zoo keep and domestics and whatnot.

Would those who have a problem with me eating a nice lamb chop view me as more ethical because the lion in the zoo was eating grandpa slop?

 

[Robo Sapien]

By eating beef we are actually helping save the earth by reducing atmospheric methane. Put that in your hookah and smoke it, hippies!

 

[Manopolus]

I was describing arguments, not people. Furthermore, I'm not sorry for calling your argument terrible. You should be sorry for making a terrible argument.

And you provided me with absolutely nothing that suggests it is terrible other than ridicule.

You still don't get it, do you? You claimed animals lead better lives on the farm than if left to the wild, but that's never been an option, so slap your knuckles twice to waken from "fantasy world" (don't worry, Cyborg's an incompetent enough VP). I love this **** where people try to reprimand me for **** they do.

And exactly what else would we do with the creatures if we don't eat them? Should we simply continue to feed thim with no expectation of a return on such a huge investment? This would not be economically possible.

It actually wasn't a huge part of my argument, anyway. I was mostly saying that if the avoidance of pain is a reason not to eat animals... it doesn't add up. The amount of pain/suffering/discomfort/whatever that animals experience on the farm is not greater than the alternatives. If this does not directly relate to what you were saying, then more clearly state what you are saying. Was your main point mockery of cyborg rather than anything relating to the OP?

I have no idea what you mean by "the question of a practical solution" but I'll take your word that it's "pertinant."

Exactly what does this mean? I don't get it. You don't understand English? Are you mocking me for spelling "pertinent" wrong? Be specific.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Again, Kevin, address my point;

Vegetables ARE meat. This is because you must kill multiple animals to operate a farm. The only way to not kill to eat is to not eat.

EVEN if you were to fill your basement with grow lights and raise all of your food hydroponically, there is no way to get that electricity except by mining raw materials and fuel, and mining kills humans with distressing regularity and the incidental animal too.

SO, Kevin, when are you going to begin your final fast? Or are you going to admit that there is no food that is free from blood?

I'm not repeating myself for you indefinitely. As I said before I have no problem with killing which is necessary for survival. Killing which is not necessary for survival (for example, killing an animal because you like its taste, in a situation where you already have sufficient calories and nutrients available) is up for questioning. Which word or words in those sentences is causing you comprehension problems?

I'm trying to show that ethics are a means to an end, rather than something inherant unto themselves.

Rearranged for clarity...

That doesn't actually work. What is the end they are working towards, and why should we value that end? (Note the word value). Whatever you answer to that question it's going to be a value judgment, not a statement of empirical fact.

By the same token, that end has to be specified reasonably clearly. So far you've been hiding behind a very amorphous concept of social benefit, that you squish into whatever shape suits you so that you can justify your existing moral beliefs in terms of social benefit. However such squishy concepts are useless in direct proportion to their squishiness, since you can squish them one way and another to get to contradictory conclusions.

This only shows that ethics are progressive. Do you deny that our current stance is more efficient, peaceful, and unified than the former set of ideals?

Sure I do, and even if I didn't it wouldn't prove the point you are trying to make.

To pick a trivially obvious example, Europe is less unified politically at the moment than it was at the height of the Roman Empire.

More importantly, we might be even more efficient and unified if we had different moral rules (it doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument whether those rules shut down factory farms, or legalise the gassing of ethnic minorities who don't assimilate well).

I don't think that you could claim that extending the same type of ethics to animals which we do to humans will have benficial effects similar to the banning of slavery. Most animals will not have any way of contributing to our society of their own free will.

Raising animals for food in the current fashion is a colossal waste of energy, since we often feed them grain which could be used to feed humans directly. So even if you consider animal suffering meaningless (in which case you should be campaigning against animal cruelty laws) there are still blatantly obvious efficiency gains to be had by reducing meat consumption.

While I do understand that cattle farming puts a lot of methane (a greenhouse gas) in the atmostphere, this does not provide the answer, either... because it offends the other side of the ethic. The only way to reduce those greenhouse gasses would be a wholesale slaughter of the livestock, not the cessation of eating them. Neither setting them free while alive, nor refusing to eat them would have the effect of reducing these gasses. Therefore, we must find another solution. Living cows produce methane, dead cows don't.

I find this argument very strange. Do you have some vision of a worldwide Animal Liberation Day when we throw open the gates to the factory farms and the pigs rush out throwing flowers in the air to live happy lives frolicking in the forest?

I think Cain has already dealt with the absurdity of arguing that the only alternative to business as usual is changing everything literally overnight.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

All of those things are still routine, and have nothing to do with what our physical bodies need to function properly. What you're advocating would cause massive undernourishment in children especially.

Clearly you haven't read the thread, or you'd know that claim was false.

It's actually not immoral to kill animals for food, no matter how much you want to believe that.

Mere assertion.

I guess I can say it's immoral for you to suggest it. It's seems you want to have your own set of morals. Eating is different from warring and oppression or racism. Eating babies may be wrong as eating your own species is not going to further the survival of the group.

Word salad.

I have a moral right to eat meat, as it is essential to our species' survival, while oppressing women is not.

Mere assertion, blatant oversimplification and incorrect to boot. But feel free to eat meat if you and your children are starving to death and you have no other options, with my blessing. I'm cool with that.

However since you have a computer and an internet connection it seem unlikely you are struggling for survival. It seems much more likely that your nutritional choices involve putting bacon in your shopping trolley, or pushing it to the next aisle over to put tofu in it. That is scarcely an issue of life and death.

You can choose whatever you want, but you can't say others are immoral because they don't make that choice. Being gay is not immoral either, but lots of people want to say it is.

Well, actually yes I can and I have to if I want to consider myself a moral being.

Inherent in the judgment that A is morally better than B is the judgment that acting to bring about A is morally better than acting to bring about B.

I'm inclined to criticise anti-gay activists for basing their moral beliefs on stupid reasons, but not for having the courage of their convictions. Having the courage to go with your convictions is a good thing, if you've thought through your convictions.