Why vegans are simply better people

[Furcifer]

The problem is animal rights nuts romanticize the life of wild animals. The fact is for all but maybe a few top predators life is waking up hungry, searching for food all day and hoping that something doesn't hurt or worse yet eat you.
I really can't tell you how much stress that puts on an animal, but if you put a human in a place where it had to fight for survival and avoid getting eaten at every turn it probably wouldn't last long. War is probably the closest thing we have to that and we know how people fair after that experience.

There's no doubt people wouldn't enjoy being domesticated animals being led to slaughter from birth. Unfortunately that says absolutely nothing about how domesticated animals feel.

 

[IDB87]

I don't believe I said that at all.

I am projecting Dessi's comments on to you. Sorry for that.

I would not advocate releasing all livestock to "fend for themselves". That would be incredibly destructive and cruel to animals to have to survive in a world they aren't suited to survive in.

[Snip opinion]

There is no quick fix for dealing with millions upon millions of livestock (in the United States) or the people habituated to exist on them. Like most things, the only solution is found through time, education and social progress.

Glad we agree.

 

[citizenzen]

I really can't tell you how much stress that puts on an animal, but if you put a human in a place where it had to fight for survival and avoid getting eaten at every turn it probably wouldn't last long. War is probably the closest thing we have to that and we know how people fair after that experience.

200,000 years and counting.

 

[Dessi]

And my family goes through great monetary pains to ensure their herd has a 'good' standard of life when compared to CAFO cows. It shows in the quality of product they produce.

Sure, a quick and painless death is less objectionable to being tormented beforehand. The standard is as true for animals as it is for humans.

I've found when talking to people, they seem to view death as having no moral consequence whatsoever as long as you're put out of your misery "nicely". I agree, its as nice to animals as it is to mentally similar humans.

I'll be the first to enjoy a helping of grass fed veal as soon as you're comfortable applying the principle consistently to your fellow humans, because honestly I'm quite interested in the flavors of humanely slaughtered humans too.

Define good quality of life for a cow, please.

Raised to its natural end, roaming pastures without being confined, not being forcefully impregnated or sold to veal producers, not being pumped full of hormones, being treated in a way that respects the cows welfare as an end itself rather than a product to be sold.

I've written about the subject before. A woman who introduced me to animal rights years and years ago kept hens, she had a fascinating perspective:

I knew an Aussie woman years ago who was a vegan and an animal rights activist. She kept a few hens, they liked to roll around in the dirt and peck at things in the ground. Sometimes the hens laid eggs, and when they did, this woman would collect them and make breakfast for her family.

Obviously, people would ask her "how can you be a vegan if you eat eggs?" She explained that she doesn't object to eating eggs because of where they come from, but how they're obtained. Her hens life happy lives and they didn't seem to know or care that she was collecting eggs. Unlike those diseased chickens stuffed 7 or 9 at a time in a battery cages, her hens are well cared for, and treated with respect consistent with her strong commitment to animal rights.

The whole vegan thing didn't click under I understood that much: its not about where they come from, but how its obtained. I can definitely sympathize with this. I live in a suburban part of Nebraska, I don't really have much space for farming in my backyard. If I did, I'd probably keep a few hens around, collect the eggs for breakfast or sell a few at the farmers market.

I could imagine myself keeping cows around or sheep around. I'm aware cows need to be milked or they'll suffer discomfort, sheep need to be shaved to keep dung and insects out of their coats.

If at any point I had to kill my animals, especially for a disgustingly stupid reason like not having enough milk myself, I wouldn't keep the animals at all. If I had to make decisions like that regarding children in my care, I'd choose not to care for children, simple as that.

Vegans generally abstain grass-fed beef because there's no coherent way to rationalize the ethics of animal slaughter. If you're going to go out of way to avoid confining cows because their quality of life matters, or because their's some moral consequence in purposefully harming them, then obviously cows matter in some morally relevant manner -- how do you rationalize killing them? Because it seems the argument for killing them is something along the lines of wanting more milk for your family, to make a profit, trivial and fleeting advantages compared to severity of being slaughtered.

Its such a bizarre ethic, no one would take it seriously in any context if we applied to way we treat humans. I've had a great life, I bet there are 1000s of ways to kill me before I could even perceive anything was out of the ordinary in the first place, is that a de facto justification to do so? I've worked with severely mentally handicapped people, people who can't speak or dress themselves or will never have a intelligence over a few years old; these people, depending on the homes their in, have an unremarkable life, occasionally are upset by things or quite amused, mostly a lackluster yet stressfree life; should I want to kill one of these people to make room for some furniture, to sell their organs and body parts, you know damn well I'd be branded as one of the most evil people on the planet.

That's one of the weird things about discussions of this sort, animal happiness matters, but not as much as making a profit -- what?

If you can't raise cows without sending a few of them off to slaughter, maybe you should plant corn or beets instead.

 

[BravesFan]

But people don't eat you. People eat cows. If you go to places where people eat you they would probably kill you in one of those 100 ways you didn't see coming and eat you.


I don't get the attempted guilt trip driven rhetoric. You are a vegan, that's cool with me. But the fundamentalist drivel that comes from the mouths of people attempting to push their personal choices onto others is no different than a Jesus freak.

I eat meat, many people in this thread apparently do too. But I haven't heard any of them telling you why you are wrong to not eat meat. yet i am hearing a lot of "cows are the same as people" talk which is clearly designed to push an agenda rather than state a reason for behavior.

But I could be wrong , it happens quite a bit!

 

[Furcifer]

200,000 years and counting.

No. Nobody worries about getting eaten everyday.

 

[IDB87]

I've found when talking to people, they seem to view death as having no moral consequence whatsoever as long as you're put out of your misery "nicely".

Right back to applying CAFO induced misery to humane farms. Why so emotive?

I'll be the first to enjoy a helping of grass fed veal as soon as you're comfortable applying the principle consistently to your fellow humans, because honestly I'm quite interested in the flavors of humanely slaughtered humans too.

Wouldn't that be "mentally similar humans"? I would not apply that principle to mentally similar members of my own society because they are part of my society. I do not view animals as part of human society. You are welcome to convince me otherwise.

Raised to its natural end, roaming pastures without being confined

You will be showing that confinement, while still having rich food sources available, bothers a cow.

not being forcefully impregnated

Which negates the milking industry, which is fine to want to abolish, if that's what you want to do.

or sold to veal producer

Then the herd will grow exponentially until the food runs out. The alternative is to abolish the industry, or sell the calf either as veal or to someone who wishes to raise it.

not being pumped full of hormones

Agreed with this.

being treated in a way that respects the cows welfare as an end itself rather than a product to be sold.

Most dairy farms do this. Regardless, it is still a product, as well as an animal.

I've written about the subject before. A woman who introduced me to animal rights years and years ago kept hens, she had a fascinating perspective:

I could imagine myself keeping cows around or sheep around. I'm aware cows need to be milked or they'll suffer discomfort, sheep need to be shaved to keep dung and insects out of their coats.

You can keep a cow without milking it. In order to get the milk, the cow must calve.

If at any point I had to kill my animals, especially for a disgustingly stupid reason like not having enough milk myself,

With one cow, you'd have more milk than you could use

If you can't raise cows without sending a few of them off to slaughter, maybe you should plant corn or beets instead.

The point is, the economy of that area is based on milking. You can't milk with out having the cows calve. So either the economy goes south, many people lose their jobs (children suffer!), or the calve is treated in a humane way and put to good use by becoming food.

 

[Dessi]

But people don't eat you. People eat cows. If you go to places where people eat you they would probably kill you in one of those 100 ways you didn't see coming and eat you.

We don't eat people because its not a cultural norm to do so.

I don't get the attempted guilt trip driven rhetoric. You are a vegan, that's cool with me. But the fundamentalist drivel that comes from the mouths of people attempting to push their personal choices onto others is no different than a Jesus freak.

I eat meat, many people in this thread apparently do too. But I haven't heard any of them telling you why you are wrong to not eat meat. yet i am hearing a lot of "cows are the same as people" talk which is clearly designed to push an agenda rather than state a reason for behavior.

Unfortunately, since this thread is honestly a cesspool, I'd be impressed if it has any redeeming value.

There are much better threads on the subject, I recommend seeing the perspective given in the following thread:

Human and Animal Rights... the same thing?

My perspective as a vegan is fairly simple: that there's no real credible distinction between animal rights and human rights, they're two sides of the same coin. I'm a vegan because I understand animal rights as a natural extension of the principles that everyone accepts regarding the ethical treatment of humans.

In discussions of this sort, I have no interest in "guilt-tripping" anyone, just that people are living consistently with their own moral values. If there is a good argument for treating animals in a way that would otherwise be cruel to perform on mentally similar humans, I'd be very interested to hear it.

 

[IDB87]

Vegans generally abstain grass-fed beef because there's no coherent way to rationalize the ethics of animal slaughter. If you're going to go out of way to avoid confining cows because their quality of life matters, or because their's some moral consequence in purposefully harming them, then obviously cows matter in some morally relevant manner -- how do you rationalize killing them?

Because the way the cows are kept and raised and fed results in the quality of the end product. If you confine a meat cow in a CAFO, the product is of very low quality and unhealthy (corn feed, hormones, etc) where as a grass fed cow will have very health beef which is good to eat and is rich in minerals and vitamins.

Because it seems the argument for killing them is something along the lines of wanting more milk for your family

This makes no sense? One healthy, well fed cow produces more than enough milk for one family, I can assure you.

to make a profit,

With which the farm can be better invested in, as well as for providing for your family.

Its such a bizarre ethic, no one would take it seriously in any context if we applied to way we treat humans.

That is because a human is a member of human society, contributes to human society, and is loved in a way that animals cannot be loved.

I've had a great life, I bet there are 1000s of ways to kill me before I could even perceive anything was out of the ordinary in the first place, is that a de facto justification to do so?

To what end? Do you believe you'd make a delicious steak?

I've worked with severely mentally handicapped people, people who can't speak or dress themselves or will never have a intelligence over a few years old; these people, depending on the homes their in, have an unremarkable life, occasionally are upset by things or quite amused, mostly a lackluster yet stressfree life; should I want to kill one of these people to make room for some furniture, to sell their organs and body parts, you know damn well I'd be branded as one of the most evil people on the planet.

Yes, because those people are people. There is no reason to kill them. Period.

That's one of the weird things about discussions of this sort, animal happiness matters, but not as much as making a profit -- what?

Profit is directly related to how well an animal is raised.

If you can't raise cows without sending a few of them off to slaughter, maybe you should plant corn or beets instead.

The point is there is no reason to raise cows outside of using their products or meat.

 

[BravesFan]

We don't eat people because its not a cultural norm to do so.


Unfortunately, since this thread is honestly a cesspool, I'd be impressed if it has any redeeming value.

There are much better threads on the subject, I recommend seeing the perspective given in the following thread:

Human and Animal Rights... the same thing?

My perspective as a vegan is fairly simple: that there's no real credible distinction between animal rights and human rights, they're two sides of the same coin. I'm a vegan because I understand animal rights as a natural extension of the principles that everyone accepts regarding the ethical treatment of humans.

In discussions of this sort, I have no interest in "guilt-tripping" anyone, just that people are living consistently with their own moral values. Most people believe they already do, but for the last 8 years I've been in discussions on the subject, I've ultimately come to the conclusion that arguments against animal rights inevitably carry over to arguments against human rights. People have very different standards, predicated on cultural norms, permitting the treatment of animals in a way that would be profoundly cruel if applied to mentally similar humans. Its very telling.

Whoa there , your use of the term "understand" is intellectually dishonest and carries the connotation that there is a fact that is misunderstood by those who disagree with you. But this is not the case.

You have personally formed guidelines of a moral code of sorts. (which you have every right to do). But you can't then present this personal moral code as facts that must be understood. No matter how many discussions you have that ,in your opinion remember, convinced you that the animals we raise for food should have the same rights as mentally similar people.

I also don't understand your point about arguments against animal rights inevitably carry over to arguments against human rights. Are you claiming that people who eat meat and/or farm are inherently going to argue against the rights of humans? That by merely stating that we don't think cows and people should have equal protection because one we eat and one is ,well US, that we are also going to be next be making supportive statements about North Korea,s human rights policies or something? Maybe I am reading this wrong?

Your moral code works for you, regardless of whether I nor anyone else believe it has any merit. (That's not our business IMO)

I don't think you would find many people who revel in cruelty to animals. (though there are some, we call them sociopaths and thank goodness they are rare). However many people eat animals, it's why we have different kinds of teeth, we are omnivores. So we need to provide the meat people choose to eat. So we have to farm animals. Approval of farming doesn't make one a bad or immoral person.

 

[Stout]

If you value your furniture more than your value the companionship of a cat, then don't get a cat. Likewise, if you don't want to hear the sound of barking, don't get a dog.





The feral/stray cats continue to be fed daily by my wife. And in the years she's been caring for them, she hasn't lost one to a mountain lion yet.

Suppose I value my furniture and companionship equally maybe the fabric has sentimental value, or something. I want declawing to be my decision and my decision only. When I went to the rescue agency, a house, I might have taken issue with cats crowded into closed bedrooms because some of them don't get along.

I could have saved a cat from that overcrowded prison like atmosphere yet due to my attachment to my furniture, there the cat(s) remain because the rescue agency gets to make the call as to what's cruel and whats not.

OK I'm just making this argument hypothetically, I'd never go for declawing but my point is that these rescue agencies, the local ones at least come off as being more interested in their needs/wants and are putting the cats secondary. In short, I think they're power tripping.

I sure was pissed that they decided not to allow me to adopt because I was letting the cat go outside. They wasted weeks of my time. Yea, sure it's "dangerous" out there but I've had this big black fluffy cat whose been going outside daily for 13 years,he's making out just fine.

Glad to hear the waterfront cats are making out. I was just wondering, playing the numbers game, what their chances of survival were in that environment compared to life on the farm. We don't have mountain lions here in the city, well not often at least but we do have raccoons and one of those can tear up a cat pretty bad.

 

[IDB87]

I also don't understand your point about arguments against animal rights inevitably carry over to arguments against human rights. Are you claiming that people who eat meat and/or farm are inherently going to argue against the rights of humans? That by merely stating that we don't think cows and people should have equal protection because one we eat and one is ,well US, that we are also going to be next be making supportive statements about North Korea,s human rights policies or something? Maybe I am reading this wrong?

Cows, for example, as well as humans, should have equal protection relative to their mental capacity - exception made for mentally retarded humans because they are humans. Citizenzen posted a link to an article that says as much, and Dessi has yet to prove that cows living on a dairy farm, that have access to rich supplies of nutritious food and shelter but yet are confined to pasture, are in any way distressed or made mentally unwell.

If she can demonstrate that, I will change my mind.

 

[Dessi]

People raise cows to sell their milk and meat. Got it. I'm glad that was clarified.

Now we're getting somewhere. I want to compare the principles stated between

Its such a bizarre ethic, no one would take it seriously in any context if we applied to way we treat humans.

That is because a human is a member of human society, contributes to human society, and is loved in a way that animals cannot be loved.

and

I've worked with severely mentally handicapped people, people who can't speak or dress themselves or will never have a intelligence over a few years old; these people, depending on the homes their in, have an unremarkable life, occasionally are upset by things or quite amused, mostly a lackluster yet stressfree life; should I want to kill one of these people to make room for some furniture, to sell their organs and body parts, you know damn well I'd be branded as one of the most evil people on the planet.

Yes, because those people are people. There is no reason to kill them. Period.

Let me point out a few things:

1) Whether humans can be loved is irrelevant. Case in point, you likely object to cruelty inflicted on humans who are never loved, a class of people which includes victims of the gay-witchhunts being carried out in Uganda. Simultaneously, you would likely reject the credibility of an argument that we shouldn't slaughter animals on the basis that a few people like me could love them. The love criteria is irrelevant.

2) Talk about special pleading. Its wrong to kill people because they can contribute to human society, but its also wrong to kill severely mentally handicapped even if they don't contribute to human society at all.

Either contributing to human society is prerequisite for moral consideration, or it isn't. If its a prerequisite, then slaughtering severely mentally handicapped people has no greater or lesser moral consequence than slaughtering cattle for food; if there's no prerequisite for to contribute to human society, then we obviously cannot exclude cows from moral consideration on the basis that they don't contribute to society.


If you want to exclude cows from moral consideration, but include severely mentally handicapped humans, you need to appeal to some other morally relevant characteristic. You've chosen species membership, suggesting that we shouldn't kill humans because they're human. I could make an equivalent argument that we shouldn't kill cows because they're cows. My argument is justified exactly as much as yours. If you reject my argument, perhaps you'd like to explain why species membership has any moral relevance whatsoever?:

 

[Stout]

Cats can be trained to claw alternatives and not claw stuff it shouldn't. As soon as I yelled an obscenity my cat knew not to touch that with its claws. Would take a few more tries before my cats got it down, but eventually they'd stick with scratching Kahalachan approved stuff.

I also think pet owners should have responsibility in knowing how a cat thinks. If you discipline a cat for biting a wire, but the wire is always swinging around (major temptation for a cat) then it's sorta your fault. Tape it down and keep it stationary.

Our older cat claws at the carpet, not the catnip laced scratching post, but the carpet on the floor for attention. It's one of those 'drop everything you're doing and pay attention to me NOW human" things he does because he knows it works.

Usually, nay always it results in that tone of voice and since he doesn't speak English, I can say anything I want, including gibberish German, but he gets the attention, even if it's the wrong kind. Same thing with jumping up on the kitchen table, he knows we don't like him doing it and he goes to the back of the table and hunkers down amongst the modem, router, telephone and all that electronic crap that lives back there, just to get attention.

Cat also likes to jump up on the bathroom counter and toss things in the sink just to wake us up to turn on the bathroom faucet for him, so he can drink running water. Ha..we started turning it on hot to break him of that habit and it worked a charm.

Would I consider declawing him just to save my carpets ? No way.

Can I even remotely begin to understand how cats think ? Same answer.

 

[citizenzen]

Suppose I value my furniture and companionship equally maybe the fabric has sentimental value, or something. I want declawing to be my decision and my decision only.

Well, as Temple Grandin (thanks RandFan for recommending her) pointed out, there's a fundamental difference between an inanimate object, cloth, and animate object, cat. If you value the inanimate object over the animate one, then Grandin, I assume RandFan, and I have a bone to pick with you.

It comes down to making an adult decision. Sometimes we can't have everything we want. And when our needs conflict, difficult choices need to be made. If the cloth were as important to you as the welfare of the cat, then the best decision is to not own the cat.

 

[Kahalachan]

My perspective as a vegan is fairly simple: that there's no real credible distinction between animal rights and human rights, they're two sides of the same coin. I'm a vegan because I understand animal rights as a natural extension of the principles that everyone accepts regarding the ethical treatment of humans.

I made a cut off at an earlier point based more heavily on kinship and intelligence and less on what kingdom that form of life happens to be in.

If someone applied the ethical treatment of humans to bacteria it would seem silly to us both. If someone applied ethical treatment to only themselves, they'd be highly immoral to us both. But within that grey area of what should be given ethical treatment is where we both are.


The question is what criteria do we determine for giving human rights to something?

The fact it's in the animal kingdom feels too arbitrary to me. I can't see an ant having the same rights as a pet dog. I'd sooner kill a mouse than a cat. I don't see all animals as equal and all easy to place into a category that it deserves human rights.

I work on sufficient conditions. If X is human, human rights. Doesn't have to be human to get human rights, but if it is human it made the cut.

There's self awareness. If that animal can recognize itself as an individual, then it doesn't get eaten. Chimps, dolphins, and the other intelligent animals fit this. If X is self aware, it made the cut. This could also apply to artificial life.

To me, simply saying all animals deserve rights is too glib an answer to the question of what deserves certain rights.

 

[Dessi]

To me, simply saying all animals deserve rights is too glib an answer to the question of what deserves certain rights.

You're exactly right, the statement "animals deserve rights" with no further context is glib and pointless, much like the statement "humans deserve rights because they're human".

I've fleshed out my thoughts numerous times on the forum. Seriously, start here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224278

 

[citizenzen]

Cows, for example, as well as humans, should have equal protection relative to their mental capacity ...

Along those lines, if aliens, possessing superior mental capacity to human beings, visited Earth ... would you consider it moral if they ate people?

 

[Stout]

My cousin, the veterinarian supports declawing for similar reasons. She's seen too many healthy, affectionate, otherwise well-behaved cats come in for voluntary euthanasia because the owner didn't have the time/inclination to train them not to claw the furniture. She'd rather see a cat alive and crippled than dead. Of course, what she really wants is to not have to make that choice.

Anecdote: As an occasional foster, I've the only time I've heard people mention declawing is when they expected my immediate approval. As in "cats are so destructive, good thing we can have this one declawed." They hadn't even had the cat in their house yet and they were already giving up. It's nearly impossible to hand over a kitten that you bottle fed for two weeks to someone who doesn't even want to try. I can see where declawing would be a trigger for distrust.

A cat who lives within a feral waterfront colony will know where the food is and will understand that environment. To take it from there and set it in an unfamiliar environment with unknown (to the cat) and deadly danger is cruel.

Yes, there's that aspect too. Having a cat put down because he/she ( damn, almost typed in "it's" ) is behaving contrary to expectations. I only know one person who's declawed a cat. She did it right from the get go, to protect the furniture. The cat was always going to be a housecat, but in a house where the cat has the possibility of running out the open door or jumping out an open window.

That was in a rural area, so there was no shortage of cats and the choice was, live without fingers or end up feral somewhere...or worse.

I wasn't given the option of trying to train the cat, the rescue agency demanded that I decry the whole idea as barbaric and given that they wanted the home inspection consent, I can't say I trusted them either. Hypothetically, they were demanding that I give up my cat should I feel the need for declawing. Hypothetically, what would happen should I refuse ? Would I suffer a break in and a "rescue" ?

 

[BravesFan]

People raise cows to sell their milk and meat. Got it. I'm glad that was clarified.

Now we're getting somewhere. I want to compare the principles stated between



and



Let me point out a few things:

1) Whether humans can be loved is irrelevant. Case in point, you likely object to cruelty inflicted on humans who are never loved, a class of people which includes victims of the gay-witchhunts being carried out in Uganda. Simultaneously, you would likely reject the credibility of an argument that we shouldn't slaughter animals on the basis that a few people like me could love them. The love criteria is irrelevant.

2) Talk about special pleading. Its wrong to kill people because they can contribute to human society, but its also wrong to kill severely mentally handicapped even if they don't contribute to human society at all.

Either contributing to human society is prerequisite for moral consideration, or it isn't. If its a prerequisite, then slaughtering severely mentally handicapped people has no greater or lesser moral consequence than slaughtering cattle for food; if there's no prerequisite for to contribute to human society, then we obviously cannot exclude cows from moral consideration on the basis that they don't contribute to society.


If you want to exclude cows from moral consideration, but include severely mentally handicapped humans, you need to appeal to some other morally relevant characteristic. You've chosen species membership, suggesting that we shouldn't kill humans because they're human. I could make an equivalent argument that we shouldn't kill cows because they're cows. My argument is justified exactly as much as yours. If you reject my argument, perhaps you'd like to explain why species membership has any moral relevance whatsoever?:

No I think that contributing to society is irrelevant. Being a person is enough for me. A cow is food. A person is a person. a deer isfood. A person is a person. A tomato plant is food!....etc

We don't (or shouldn't) arbitrarily kill people because they are people. We kill cows because they are food. The mental faculties and/or ability to function and/or contribute is moot. In fact cruelty to special needs people tends to come off as even more repugnant as they are PEOPLE who can't take care or defend themselves.

You are a person, you have chosen a precarious relationship with food due to a personal morality you designed for yourself. You have decided that food should be protected because people eat it. (yet you seem to have no problem with other species eating food species only humans). I would say that you have a problem with humans more than anything else.