Why vegans are simply better people

[RandFan]

In order to create an is-ought fallacy, you had to deny what the charter says, speak for Hume and make the claim that you also speak for all moral philosophers. That's a lot of twisting and turning. I'm not convinced simply on the basis of Occam's Razor.

This isn't an argument.

Perhaps you could use the charter to demonstrate that the rights given in it to "all humans" are not given because they are human. Perhaps it is because they all have blue eyes, or black skin, or live in a particular country, or maybe the rights also extend to all animals but there wasn't enough space available on the pages to write it.

I've no idea what this means or how it is relevant.

The fact is, the charter gives rights to all humans even though the drafters know that not all humans are equal intellectually or in awareness. That in itself is evidence that the only thing required to have these rights is that one is lucky enough to be born human.

I accept that it is evidence that being human is all that is required. It doesn't tell us anything about why or how the UN arrived at the decision. Having taken courses on justice and ethics and having read a number of books on the history of moral progress and books on moral philosophy I can assure you that it was far from "hey, let's just give everyone rights just because they are human"

Now, if you want to make the intelligence- awareness argument as to why some animals should be granted the equivalent of basic human rights, I agree and support it 100%. I think a very strong case can and should be made. But there are a very limited number of animals that qualify in my opinion. Cattle and swine aren't included.

No. I told you we are sticking with YOUR claim.

 

[Dessi]

You edit your posts after people reply to them?

Nope, I edit my posts before people reply to them, usually spelling or phrasing or grammar, sometimes it can take several minutes to finish an edit. Apologies for having a quirky posting style.

 

[qayak]

I asked you specifically on at least two occasions.

No, you did not ask. You commented and I clarified.

NO. I have been very careful and deliberate here. I have taken pains before advancing the discussion. YOU are the one who delineated where rights come from and what is excluded from that process.

Sorry, this is just wrong. I stated where "basic human rights" came from and why they are given.

So, lets go back. We cannot have a discussion if you are now going to change your position.

I have not changed my position once. I have talked about nothing but "basic human rights" and that those rights are given simply on the basis of being human. Smoking cigarettes is not a basic human right.

Right? That is what you said, right? Do you wish to modify that? Being human is the only basis for rights. Remember human therefore "X"? A child is human therefore...

Once again you do not read what I write. Being human is not the only basis for rights but it is the basis for human rights. This isn't rocket science. Being a woman is the basis of women's rights. It isn't hard to figure out.

The rest doesn't matter. I never doubted your understanding of rights. Just trying to flesh out your clam.

Then you should have read my first post, nothing has changed.

Being stuck with Hume's view you are missing one major point. Humnan rights used to be few and abstract, Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. That is the realm of the moral philosopher. Modern human rights are many and specific, the right to security of person, the right to participate in government, the right to practice your religion, etc. They are the realm of lawyers.

The change came about because the few and vague rights were impossible to administer. The many and specific rights are not perfect but at least workable.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Holy wow, wild New Year on this side. Happy 2012 everyone!

I personally think the word "dehumanize" is a loaded, very emotionally charged word. Before even beginning to have a conversation of whether I "dehumanize" handicapped people, you should at least explain why you mean by the term.

I very clearly don't view handicapped people as any more or less human than able-bodied people, they're members of my species with a personality, interests, wants, desires, and feelings of their own. How do you think I'm dehumanizing them? For a more interesting question, do you think I'm advocating treating mentally handicapped people cruelly?

I draw comparisons between animal rights and human rights because I very strongly believe they are one in the same. Arguments against animal rights have a bizarre consequence of excluding a whole class of humans, almost always infants, children, and the severely mentally handicapped. See here:

Its a funny situation, do we raise animals to the status of non-rational humans, or do we reduce non-rational humans to the status of animals? Both views are consistent, most people simply find the latter one to be profoundly cruel and repugnant.

Its really not that easy to find an "out", a way that allows you to treat animals cruelly but treat non-rational humans as if they were moral agents. The only explanations for this "out" depend directly on speciesism, insisting that species membership endows members of the human species (at the exclusion of all others) with some essential property (a soul, perhaps) which gives humans inherent moral value. Strangely enough, the people making these arguments are perfectly happy to turn their backs on it, they might say they'll consider animal rights if animals were rational enough to fight for them, or they might say aliens who visit earth have some claim to human rights -- its not species membership that accounts for the "essential property", but something else which is inevitably tied to rationality or moral agency. But once we accept this much, we're right back where we started, how do we accounts for the rights of severely mentally handicapped people and infants who lack the prerequisites for that "essential property"? We can't.

So we circle right back around, do we reduce mentally handicapped people to the status of mentally similar animals, or do we raise mentally similar animals to the status of mentally handicapped people? Why do we even value mentally handicapped people in the first place? My best guess is that we only value the severely mentally impaired, as well as infants, because we care about their ability to suffer, feel satisfaction, pain, pleasure -- abilities which are in no way exclusive to many animals who are treated poorly everyday.

That's the point. You can't argue against animal rights without arguing against the rights of a whole class of humans at the same time. You can't argue for human rights without being automatically inclusive to animals.

If my comments are the least bit dehumanizing to anyone, please let me know what you find offensive.

First off, Happy New Year, Dessi! Hope it brings you much happiness.

All righty. I really don't know where to begin on your statements because you make quite a lot of sweeping generalizations - and you're not exactly clear about what you are stating. I look at some of what you've written and then say: What the living hell? I find the identical situation with RandFan: Much written, little said. Could just be a Raidey limitation, a majestic display of Raidey-dumbth? There's a possibility.

Please be specific about animals. Or, state that you include every member of the animal kingdom, from a cockroach to a blue whale. You are stating: Animal rights. Which rights, for which animals?

Do you include 'standard' human pets in the animal rights paradigm? We Yanks are big cat and dog fans - many pet owners consider them members of their own families. Some place pets above humans in their relationships, we've seen that. Cats and dogs are hardcore carnivores - they must subsist on animal protein, primarily, to survive. How should that be done? Should cows, pigs, chickens be raised to sustain our carnivorous four-footed cutie pie kitties and doggies?

We humans have not yet - STILL - come to grips with the dispersal of a universal set of basic rights for ourselves - worldwide. In parts of India? Apparently it yet exists that a man can set his wife on fire for NOT bearing enough sons, or for that 'insufficient dowry' nonsense or other transgressions. We Yanks - pretty much have to hide our faces regarding race relations, in some ways. Human rights in China? We'd better do some assessment there and rectify problems immediately, if not sooner. Just a few examples, but supposedly we 'know' ourselves and yet still struggle with basic rights issues for ourselves. Therefore how can you expect folks in general to become really enthused about discerning the rights of a Komodo Dragon, a capybara, a dung beetle, a yellow-bellied sapsucker, spiny anteater, a spotted stinkfish or Holstein cow?

 

[RandFan]

Sorry, this is just wrong. I stated where "basic human rights" came from and why they are given.

Where?

That argument fails on the grounds that humans are given rights on the basis of their being human not on the basis of their awareness or intelligence.

I see nothing about where rights come from and I took pains to clarify.

But let's move on.

Do you have something more than "Just because we are human"? How is that an answer? Why can't we say, "we are going to extend rights only to Americans just because we are Americans"?

What is meant by "equating". Is it dehumanizing to point out that humans and rats are mammals? Why is it that stating a fact is dehumanizing, and even if it we're, would that change the truth value of the fact?

Why isn't an accusation of "dehumanizing" not ad hominem poisoning the well? Assuming it were in fact dehumanizing would that make Dessis's statement false?

• Is it true to state that rats and humans are both placental mammals?
• Is it dehumanizing?

The change came about because the few and vague rights were impossible to administer. The many and specific rights are not perfect but at least workable.

No. Not even close. I took ethics at the university, I took the Harvard online Justice course, I've read books on ethics. This I can assure you is not right. Dictators don't fail to enact free speech laws because they are or are not "workable". Modern liberal democracies don't prohibit cruel and unusual punishment because it is or isn't "workable". Ask the Iranians, summary executions are VERY "workable". In fact due process is expensive and difficult. The North didn't fight to end slavery because slavery in the south was not "workable" for the North.

 

[Dessi]

Being human is not the only basis for rights but it is the basis for human rights. This isn't rocket science. Being a woman is the basis of women's rights. It isn't hard to figure out.

Being a woman is not the basis of women's rights. Women's rights are born from challenges against cultural norms which generally consider women inferior to men, or challenge the norms that women have a "place" in society and that their place is "to serve men". Women's rights are substantially based on equalizing men and women, arguing that women's claim to autonomy, property, pursue higher education, and hold positions of authority are substantially similar to men's interests, and equally deserving of the same consideration. Equal rights between men and women are based on equal consideration of interests.

Civil rights movements which demand equal rights for people of all different races and ethnicities follow in the exact same way: that the color of a person's skin has absolutely nothing to do with whether a person deserves to have a roof over their head, deserves food, deserves to be treated kindly or with any modicum of respect. No matter peoples differences in skin color, they deserve equal rights and equal consideration of interests.

The gay rights movements, handicapped rights, rights for working class people follow in many of the same ways. Often times, these movements try to show similarities between the privileged and underprivileded groups, often times these similarities are couched in language which says everyone is human.

I find the language interesting: there's a strong bias for saying I am human instead of I am a human. That phrase, "is human" is a very loaded term, its heavily equivocated. On the one hand, it means literally being a member of my species, capable of interbreeding with people sufficiently similar to your DNA; on the other hand, it has strong connotations to the idea of personhood, moral agency, having a memories and personality, having some abstract inherent specialness, having a soul, deserving the right not to be treated as a mean to and end but as an end in yourself, having whatever that "essential characteristic" is which makes their lives and experiences worth protecting.

Being human -- whatever that means -- is the basis of human rights. Animal rights activists generally see human rights, especially as it pertains to "marginal persons" or "moral patients" or whatever your preferred language is for humans who are neither rational nor moral agents, as a lot more inclusive than it initially seems.

 

[RandFan]

Being a woman is not the basis of women's rights. Women's rights are born from challenges against cultural norms which generally consider women inferior to men, or challenge the norms that women have a "place" in society and that their place is "to serve men". Women's rights are substantially based on equalizing men and women, arguing that women's claim to autonomy, property, pursue higher education, and hold positions of authority are substantially similar to men's interests, and equally deserving of the same consideration. Equal rights between men and women are based on equal consideration of interests.

Civil rights movements which demand equal rights for people of all different races and ethnicities follow in the exact same way: that the color of a person's skin has absolutely nothing to do with whether a person deserves to have a roof over their head, deserves food, deserves to be treated kindly or with any modicum of respect. No matter peoples differences in skin color, they deserve equal rights and equal consideration of interests.

The gay rights movements, handicapped rights, rights for working class people follow in many of the same ways. Often times, these movements try to show similarities between the privileged and underprivileded groups, often times these similarities are couched in language which says everyone is human.

To add to that.

The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle --Peter Singer

At the end of the nineteenth century WH Lecky wrote of human concern as an expanding circle which begins with the individual, then embraces the family and ‘soon the circle... includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity, and finally, its influence is felt in the dealings of man [sic] with the animal world’

...

Our century is the first in which it has been possible to speak of global responsibility and a global community. For most of human history we could affect the people in our village, or perhaps in a large city, but even a powerful king could not conquer far beyond the borders of his kingdom. When Hadrian ruled the Roman Empire, his realm covered most of the ‘known’ world, but today when I board a jet in London leaving what used to be one of the far-flung outposts of the Roman Empire, I pass over its opposite boundary before I am even halfway to Singapore, let alone to my home in Australia. Moreover no matter what the extent of the empire, the time required for communications and transport meant that there was simply no way in which people could make any difference to the victims of floods, wars, or massacres taking place on the other side of the globe. By the time anyone had heard of the events and responded, the victims were dead or had survived without assistance. ‘Charity begins at home’ made sense, because it was only ‘at home’ – or at least in your own town – that you could be confident that your charity would make any difference.

As I have said before, we understand how and why the circle expands. And it has little to do with what is workable.

 

[qayak]

Where?

You take my post out of context. In my original post I was responding to Dessi saying:

Originally Posted by Dessi:
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 the actual context my statement stands. We do indeed give humans rights based merely on the fact that they are human.

But let's move on.

Do you have something more than "Just because we are human"? How is that an answer? Why can't we say, "we are going to extend rights only to Americans just because we are Americans"?

It is a perfectly good answer. That you think being human isn't enough to grant rights is irrelevant. Human rights advocates would surely disagree with you. Your claim opens the door for discrimination on a myriad of points like race, gender, skin colour, big noses, baldness, etc.

"Human rights" mean just that, inalienable rights granted simply because one is human.

And by the way, Americans do have rights that others don't just like Canadians have rights you don't. The right to universal health care for instance.

What is meant by "equating". Is it dehumanizing to point out that humans and rats are mammals? Why is it that stating a fact is dehumanizing, and even if it we're, would that change the truth value of the fact?

Why do you ask me? Dessi brought up "equating" not me. I was just the first person to ask her to clarify what she meant. Her answer is what led me to say that we, in fact, do give rights based solely on the fact that someone is human.

I have no issue with her "equating," I just do not think it is grounds to grant rights to all animals although I definitely think it is reason to grant rights to some animals.

Before you go off on that point, let me remind you that Dessi also has an arbitrary cut off point. She doesn't want bacteria and viruses to have rights but thinks food animals should. I think food animals shouldn't because they don't meet the requirements.

As well, my argument isn't based on intelligence or awareness equal to humans although that plays into it. My argument is based on a thought experiment posed in a Carl Sagan book. Not sure if it was DHW or Billiuons.

Why isn't an accusation of "dehumanizing" not ad hominem poisoning the well? Assuming it were in fact dehumanizing would that make Dessis's statement false?

Seems to me I stayed out of that silly argument. I won't be brought into it now.

No. Not even close. I took ethics at the university, I took the Harvard online Justice course, I've read books on ethics. This I can assure you is not right. Dictators don't fail to enact free speech laws because they are or are not "workable". Modern liberal democracies don't prohibit cruel and unusual punishment because it is or isn't "workable". Ask the Iranians, summary executions are VERY "workable". In fact due process is expensive and difficult. The North didn't fight to end slavery because slavery in the south was not "workable" for the North.

I think you are off in the nether world here. "Unworkable" in the sense that the entire thing is open to any sort of interpretation one wants to make. "Workable" in the sense that they can be applied in everyday human life without always having to be tested in court. In other words, workable in the sense of normal reason, that most people have the ability to understand and agree with.

And the most workable is that human rights are granted merely on the basis of one being human. You can argue about what "human" is but modern genetics pretty much has that figured out.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Okay, I think I have thought of how to best address these non-arguments:

1. Survival: A grandma gets in my way at the grocery store so I pepper spray her. But see, those sausages are food which is necessary for my survival! The more interesting problem with this is whether we consider survival a relevant moral criteria. This needs to be previously established or agreed upon. But this can be sidestepped because the situation is so clearly not necessary because of our abundance of alternatives that will allow our survival. I'll bring up the Jains again, because they are pretty kick-***.

2. Omnivore: Some people wave this as a title of enormous weight, but don't see it. Our biology has the capability to derive nutrition from animals. So? In what way does this connect to whether or not I can slit a cows throat? I just don't see it. I have to biological capability to sire children. Therefore I am entitled to rape this woman. I just don't see any connection. I've yet to meet a vegan that stated my digestion of animal protein was the moral dilemma.

3. Loki's Wager: I have great dislike for this tactic because it is so lazy. Basically, a meat-eater brings up various challenges to the extent of a vegan's recognition of rights and then declares the situation to be insoluble without even waiting for a response. Personally, I think these are very interesting examinations but they are being wasted because they are used as an excuse for apathy.

4. Imperfection: Humans are imperfect and inconsistent, therefore all this moral crap is useless. Yeah.

5. Nutrition: If you have any doubts about this, be aware that you are speaking to a vegan who has probably read medical lit or at least PETA propaganda on this. Bring something good to the table or this won't even start as an argument. Of course, in searching you will probably find that nutrition is a very non-mysterious science and we have a great understanding of how the essential amino-acids work in the human body.

I personally think the "What about the field mice?" non-philosophical argument to be more useful than any of the above. Or perhaps rephrasing the "Loki's Wager" above into a simple question. Neither is a good rebuttal, but it will create much better insight into a vegan's philosophical stance (like whether it is Singer's utilitarianism, deontological, environmental, religious based, woo/health-myth based, etc.) There was actually an interesting study a few years back that claimed more crop-killed animals were harmed by being vegan, but two studies since then have contradicted that.

Now, to ask the meat-eaters in the room a question for a change! Specifically, I am looking at the moderates, those who oppose factory-farms, buy free-range, don't eat veal, or any of the other positions that might fall under general animal welfarism. Why?

 

[qayak]

Being a woman is not the basis of women's rights.

And yet, being a woman is the only way to get women's rights. But maybe you are right. There are chimpanzees all over the world who need you to go to court and argue they are entitled to women's rights.

Good luck.

 

[cyborg]

What has been the trend for slavery in modern liberal democracies?

This simply confirms my point that these things are not fixed. The current trend is irrelevant (what makes you think it couldn't shift back for one thing?)

So we only extend rights to those in our society?

Yes, that is exactly what societies do - even if they decide they want to confer rights more widely.

Sounds like a naturalistic fallacy.

It isn't - it is just pointing out that it is hardly surprising that the invention of rights - and it is an invention, not something that naturally exists - by humans aren't likely to focus on non-humans. I am not saying any particular thing should be done.

Why not rape and kill because we by nature are a species that rapes and kills?

You seem to think I am proscribing behaviour for some reason.

 

[cyborg]

Can you explain this?

You are making a tacit assumption that your existence is necessary.

Is it? Because if it is not you have not minimised unnecessary suffering.

Do you plan or have you procreated? Because as far as propagating any suffering humanity imposes in the world that is by far the most damaging action.

Unless you think that is a false premise and that suffering should not be minimized?

I don't agree that suffering should be minimised. Suffering has its function.

I also don't accept that it's really about the suffering of animals - because it's not. It's about your reaction to your perception of animal suffering. It's an important distinction as the mere farming of animals to eat them is not an act that leads to intrinsic suffering (regardless of whether methods currently used could be said to do so).

 

[cyborg]

Why do we even value mentally handicapped people in the first place?

Again the massive elephant in the room: not everyone does.

My best guess is that we only value the severely mentally impaired, as well as infants, because we care about their ability to suffer, feel satisfaction, pain, pleasure

No, it's not about their suffering, it's about our projection of their mental state onto us whether or not it is a true reflection of reality.

I mean really, does no-one get the fact that just because a child can believe their stuffed animal has emotional states doesn't mean it does?

That's the point. You can't argue against animal rights without arguing against the rights of a whole class of humans at the same time. You can't argue for human rights without being automatically inclusive to animals.

Maybe you can't but I sure can - it is your assumption that rights we confer are all about suffering and minimising it, I simply assume it is about the perception rather than the outcome - i.e. that it is political.

 

[Cain]

In a post to Citizenzen:

That is, at least an honest response and I would agree with you with the caveat that animal-rights consumers of products tested on animals who accept that there are nor viable alternatives don't contribute to or participate in activities that seek to destroy property and/or harm people involved with animal testing. However, this is not what Cain is arguing, rather that products purchased that have been animal tested is sunk costs and that is not the case.

Hilarious. You've misconstrued my position. Earlier you blabbed:

Yea yea, lalalala I can't heeeaaar you. I'll make the benevolent assumption that you don't understand how this works. All of the drugs, biologicals and medical devices that help to keep you and your loved ones with a quality of life from relieving a headache to treating a chronic disorder or preventing/treating infectious diseases have been legally tested on animals. Your purchase of them continues to fund the next generation of drugs, biologicals and medical devices, which are tested on animals....

Thus, you are a hypocrite for continuing to purchase products that have been tested on animals and fund present and future research and development of products that are/will be tested on animals. And this probably includes many of the soaps, shampoos and other vanity products you and your family purchase too, unless of course, you make your own.

I did not think you were actually so presumptuous and foolish as to make this sort of assumption. In retrospect it should have been obvious as this whole animal experimentation side-track (or troll) came as an after thought to terrorism (I'll get to that in a moment).

You continually make assumptions about the products that I use absent any kind of evidence. You continually bring up family members who are free to make their own choices independent of my beliefs. I derive non-trivial benefits -- joy even -- from the company of people who literally live off animals. I suppose I should shun them so as to discourage their habits. Or maybe I should fake my own death and live in a shack in Montana.

Of course you need it to be meaningless blabber to keep yourself in the realm of denial. The actions and principles of ALF are not consistent as they commit acts of terrorism upon humans and property. Do you wish to keep denying this?

A real pearl-clutcher. I've already said that I accept the label of "terrorist," just as I'd accept the label of "terrorist" for throwing tea into the Boston harbor. The problem is that you tread in labels (and mud) rather than moral principles. You're reduced to shrieking name-calling "hypocrite" rather than arguments.


-----------------------


Conspiraider:

Poppycock, Cain. You just made an assumption that I claim there's no such thing as morality

This is false, but you might lead me to believe it...

Morality is no absolute. We constantly redefine aspects of it. Cultures define it differently. I think India tends to frown upon raising cows for food or byproducts. We Yanks don't. We Yanks do frown upon eating dog meat. Some Chinese do not.

Yes, norms vary across cultures...

What we're quibbling about? The absoluteness that you use as the yardstick to measure morality, and the intolerance for those who don't measure up - in your view. Me? I think it's great that you've decided not to eat an insect, a slug, a bird, a rodent, a hoofed animal and stick only with veggies and, I'm projecting, fungi-type foods such as mushrooms and truffles. GREAT! I really hope you're happy with it. And if you find you're not happy with it and wish to alter your diet? GREAT!

I think you're also making the assumption that this discussion does not happen, or that it should not happen. Someone condemns a despot for murder, shouts things like, I dunno, "Murderer!" Is she being judgmental. I suppose. Evil banker raids pensions. A retiree/victim/ex-retiree/future Wal-Mart greeter calls the banker a "thief." Is he being judgmental? You've concluded, or assumed, is that animal rights is this area where, to quote mumblethrax, we should "live and let kill." Of course, when it comes the consumption of animals, vegans don't go around saying YOU should stop. Maybe that's the subtext, but the frame is, "WE should reconsider what we're doing."

But all of that crap is boring to me because it does not deal with the moral issues at hand.

 

[cyborg]

Now, to ask the meat-eaters in the room a question for a change! Specifically, I am looking at the moderates, those who oppose factory-farms, buy free-range, don't eat veal, or any of the other positions that might fall under general animal welfarism. Why?

Because it pleases me - same as why someone would choose to be vegan. Unfortunately being honest doesn't let you get on a moral high horse but I don't care about that, I just can't stand the self-serving arguments that pretend to be all about helping out food animals - as if you're so certain you now what's best for them based on your assumptions of what suffering is.

Say what you like about those who advocate voluntary human extinction but at least they have the courage to take the logic to its end-point.

 

[RandFan]

This simply confirms my point that these things are not fixed. The current trend is irrelevant (what makes you think it couldn't shift back for one thing?)

That these things are not fixed was never in question. The trend is extremely relevant if it is correlated to increased well being and decreased suffering. If I thought that it couldn't shift back then I wouldn't have said "not likely". I think it can shift back but since so many people like freedom, increased well being, decreased suffering i can't for the life of me imagine why it would. Do you really think the trend arbitrary?

Yes, that is exactly what societies do - even if they decide they want to confer rights more widely.

That's what they do except when they don't? I'll accept that there are differences but as far as fundamental rights, no. You can't kill foreigners or rob them just because they are foreigners and that's pretty universal.

It isn't - it is just pointing out that it is hardly surprising that the invention of rights - and it is an invention, not something that naturally exists - by humans aren't likely to focus on non-humans. I am not saying any particular thing should be done.

For thousands of years humans were not likely to focus on foreigners. In the past you could kill foreigners. Can you think of a reason why we started focusing on foreigners or do you really think rights are arbitrary?

You seem to think I am proscribing behaviour for some reason.

No. Not at all. Just demonstrating the problem with the logic.

Your logic: We give humans rights because it is our nature.
Extended: We kill people because it's our nature.
Question: Are we slaves to our nature?

 

[RandFan]

In the actual context my statement stands. We do indeed give humans rights based merely on the fact that they are human.

We used to extend rights only to members of the tribe. That was arbitrary.

It is a perfectly good answer.

It's a fallacy. It's arbitrary.

That you think being human isn't enough to grant rights is irrelevant. Human rights advocates would surely disagree with you. Your claim opens the door for discrimination on a myriad of points like race, gender, skin colour, big noses, baldness, etc.

No. On the contrary. My basis is comprehensive and excludes arbitrary designations.

"Human rights" mean just that, inalienable rights granted simply because one is human.

Ought-is fallacy. We are human therefore we ought to extend rights to humans.

Why do you ask me? Dessi brought up "equating" not me. I was just the first person to ask her to clarify what she meant. Her answer is what led me to say that we, in fact, do give rights based solely on the fact that someone is human.

? WTH? ...

Actually, she did equate humans to animals when she stated meat eaters were being consistent if they based their willingness to slaughter animals on intelligence and awareness because some handicapped humans have low intelligence and awareness but we wouldn't slaughter them.

Of course that claim fails but she did equate them.

You brought it to my attention. In the future, if you don't care then please DON'T waste my time. If you are going to insist that she equated humans to animals then answer my question or let it drop.

• Is it "equating" to state that rats and humans are both placental mammals?

I think you are off in the nether world here. "Unworkable" in the sense that the entire thing is open to any sort of interpretation one wants to make. "Workable" in the sense that they can be applied in everyday human life without always having to be tested in court. In other words, workable in the sense of normal reason, that most people have the ability to understand and agree with.

I honestly have no idea where you are getting any of this. Ad hoc? For the past 15 years I've been studying ethics, morality, etc, and I honestly have no clue. Can you give me some kind of reference? A book? Internet link? I'm sure it makes sense in your head but not from where I stand.

And the most workable is that human rights are granted merely on the basis of one being human.

You are entitled to an opinion but I've no idea where this comes from. I'm sorry but it sounds like ad hoc rationalization.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Because it pleases me - same as why someone would choose to be vegan. Unfortunately being honest doesn't let you get on a moral high horse but I don't care about that, I just can't stand the self-serving arguments that pretend to be all about helping out food animals - as if you're so certain you now what's best for them based on your assumptions of what suffering is.

Say what you like about those who advocate voluntary human extinction but at least they have the courage to take the logic to its end-point.

If I get out my psych hat, this is a clear case of projection .

So do you think moral issues are matters of taste (pun not intended), or that vegans are misleadingly making moral claims?

 

[qayak]

We used to extend rights only to members of the tribe. That was arbitrary.

So?

It's a fallacy. It's arbitrary.

Being arbitrary doesn't mean its a fallacy. Arbitrary simply means one decided to make a distinction at a point that suits them. I got news for you, your designation is arbitrary too.

No. On the contrary. My basis is comprehensive and excludes arbitrary designations.

Evidence.

Ought-is fallacy. We are human therefore we ought to extend rights to humans.

Um, not quite. We are the only species that can extend rights. So we set the standard for what rights are and who gets them. When we decide to extend "human rights" rest assured they are only extended to humans.

Of course, we have some "animal rights" to which extend to some animals and not to humans. For instance, we have agreed that animals must be treated humanely even if we are going to slaughter them for food. Humans don't get that right because they are not going to be slaughtered. They get treated humanly because they are human.

You are hung up on the ought-is thing. It is accepted that ought -is in rights is not a fallacy, it is the conditions under which we work. In fact, there would be no need for rights if it did not exist. "This is how it is, this is how it ought to be." It is the beginning of extending rights.

What you refuse to admit even though the evidence proves you wrong, is that human rights are extended to people simply because they are human. They don;t have to qualify in any other way.

? WTH? ...

You brought it to my attention. In the future, if you don't care then please DON'T waste my time. If you are going to insist that she equated humans to animals then answer my question or let it drop.

You asked me what was meant by "equating." I didn't bring it up and you need to ask the person that did what they meant. Of course, they already stated what they meant and you could have just gone back and checked.

Either way, I don't have an issue with what they meant, I only had an issue with you claiming they didn't equate humans to animals.

• Is it "equating" to state that rats and humans are both placental mammals?

Once again, why are you asking me? Equating has nothing to do with my argument. I don't care.

I honestly have no idea where you are getting any of this. Ad hoc? For the past 15 years I've been studying ethics, morality, etc, and I honestly have no clue. Can you give me some kind of reference? A book? Internet link? I'm sure it makes sense in your head but not from where I stand.

You are entitled to an opinion but I've no idea where this comes from. I'm sorry but it sounds like ad hoc rationalization.

It comes from research on websites dedicated to the history and protection of "human rights." It all seems pretty straight forward and reasonable to me. The history of how the UN charter came into being is quite fascinating. Of course, I learned about that in grade school back in the 60's so it was a nice refresher for me.

It is those sights that demonstrate why philosophical ideology about rights don't work in the real world and why the new system of law based rights do. We don't need the goodwill of every individual as the philosopher does. We simply need the force of the law which is already in place. A m,uch more just and workable system.

 

[Stout]

I think you bring up an interesting point, as mother's milk is an animal product and the healthiest (as far as I know) food for babies. And the question of how best to address a developing child's nutritional needs is an important question. I didn't become fully vegetarian until about the age of 30 and never had an children (phew!) so I never had to deal with these issues. It may be that the choice of veganism is best left to adults. I'm sure other folks here have looked into it and I hope they'll help inform us with their thoughts and experiences.

My only quibble is in the notion that the body "copes' with the lack of meat. I think it's been adequately demonstrated that vegan or vegetarian diets, have the potential to sustain a normal person over their (adult) life. If your theory is correct, one could expect to see a greater degree of deterioration in the bodies of vegans vs. meat-eaters as they aged. If you or anyone else could provide evidence that backs this up, it would be (I'm going to say it) food for thought.

You'd be off the hook on the mothers milk issue under vegan rules. The mother couldn't be considered a "slave animal" in this case so feeding the infant this animal product wouldn't be a violation. Under a strictly vegetarian diet, one where animal products are avoided because they're bad, health wise, you may have a problem.

I can find no evidence that a vegetarian/vegan diet has an adverse relationship to health. It would be extremely challenging trying to raise a child under vegan rules, but not impossible.