Why vegans are simply better people

[citizenzen]

One might argue ( I would, anyway .. ) that it is unlikely the creatures in your examples are aware they are being used as slaves in the sense that humans would.

Then you could likewise argue that the animals are unaware that they are enslaving other animals and don't deserve that description.

 

[citizenzen]

What information are you trying to convey by using the word? Is it identical to that of human slaves?

Reality?

I'm trying to convey reality.

 

[RandFan]

Reality?

I'm trying to convey reality.

Zen, we are not likely to get far in our discussion if this is going to be the extent of your contributions. I've stipulated that I will accept the word but I don't know what it means in this context. Do you simply mean held captive and induced/coerced/forced to do the bidding of the farmer? Or is it something else? Please work with me here. Okay?

 

[citizenzen]

Do you simply mean held captive and induced/coerced/forced to do the bidding of the farmer? Or is it something else?

No. That pretty much sums it up. Sold as a commodity, held against will, forced into labor or service ... slavery.

It used to be worse. We used to rely on animals a major method of transportation and labor. The internal combustion engine and other technologies have allowed most of the jobs that were once performed by animals to now be done by machine. And now we know that vegetables, fruits and grains can replace animals in our diet, though there is a less compelling reason for many to make that transition.

But I'm not asking anybody to change their diet. That's a personal choice. I'm merely trying to get some here to accurately label what that choice demands.

 

[RandFan]

No. That pretty much sums it up. Sold as a commodity, held against will, forced into labor or service ... slavery.

Okay, so let's go back. Do animals such as cows have the same mental capacity and the same mental experience as humans?

It used to be worse. We used to rely on animals a major method of transportation and labor. The internal combustion engine and other technologies have allowed most of the jobs that were once performed by animals to now be done by machine. And now we know that vegetables, fruits and grains can replace animals in our diet, though there is a less compelling reason for many to make that transition.

But I'm not asking anybody to change their diet. That's a personal choice. I'm merely trying to get some here to accurately label what that choice demands.

Fair enough, I understand and I'm not hostile to your view, I'm trying to find out if you believe that the appreciable life of an animal slave is measurably worse than the appreciable life of an animal in the wild? Which brings me back to my two examples. Do you reject the science of Temple and the experts that Alda spoke to?

 

[dafydd]

Vegetarian is an anagram of ate in grave. Spooky.

 

[myowninvention]

No. That pretty much sums it up. Sold as a commodity, held against will, forced into labor or service ... slavery.

It used to be worse. We used to rely on animals a major method of transportation and labor. The internal combustion engine and other technologies have allowed most of the jobs that were once performed by animals to now be done by machine. And now we know that vegetables, fruits and grains can replace animals in our diet, though there is a less compelling reason for many to make that transition.

But I'm not asking anybody to change their diet. That's a personal choice. I'm merely trying to get some here to accurately label what that choice demands.

I have spent a lot of time around cows in my life. I have learned a lot about them. They are sweet tempered, gentle, communal animals. They are also extremely dumb. We have about 40 acres of pasture, and generally about 20 to 30 cows. There are electric fences on all four sides of the pasture, and two sides have a high fence as well. On one side, it keeps the cows from wandering into the road, on another from going into the hay field, without which they would not have food for the winter. The other two sides are swamp and forest, wheel we have lost a couple of cows before- they wander into the swamp and get stuck. The high fences are to help keep predators out- we had a nasty incident a few years ago with one of the calves and some wolves. If I could explain to the cows, as I do to my children, why they shouldn't wander off, I would not have the electric fences atall. Neck, if they were as capable of taking care of themselves as the cats are, I would can the fences. They're not. I don't see this as akin to slavery any more then keeping a dog on a leash in the city. Again- if we could explain to them that cars go fast, perhaps this practice could be seen as cruel, but we can't.

Human slavery was cruel because we cannot possibly excuse using restraint on a rational person as 'for their own good'- because, as we know, a human can comprehend theoretical dangers and make independent decisions to avoid them. Until we see a cow, chicken, or even a pig make these kinds of informed decisions, I don't see fencing them in, provided we take steps to ensure their comfort and well being, as anything like comparable to the forced restraint of human slaves.

 

[citizenzen]

Okay, so let's go back. Do animals such as cows have the same mental capacity and the same mental experience as humans?

It does not appear as if they do. But as Grandin says, it's only a matter of degree.

I'm trying to find out if you believe that the appreciable life of an animal slave is measurably worse than the appreciable life of an animal in the wild?

All living beings suffer, even humans. I'm simply advocating to reduce the suffering that we have some control over.

Which brings me back to my two examples. Do you reject the science of Temple and the experts that Alda spoke to?

No. I don't reject them. I look forward to reading more from Grandon. I'd especially like to see anything where she argues for animals being property. I'd be curious what her reasoning would be.

 

[citizenzen]

Until we see a cow, chicken, or even a pig make these kinds of informed decisions, I don't see fencing them in, provided we take steps to ensure their comfort and well being, as anything like comparable to the forced restraint of human slaves.

How are we ensuring their well being when we are slaughtering them?

 

[RandFan]

It does not appear as if they do. But as Grandin says, it's only a matter of degree.

Agreed. And as Grandin points out, the degree for cows is not sufficient to warrant prohibition of the livestock industry. Again, she developed modern slaughter methods.

All living beings suffer, even humans. I'm simply advocating to reduce the suffering that we have some control over.

Agreed. The question then becomes, which if animals cross the threshold. She actually has a list.

No. I don't reject them. I look forward to reading more from Grandon. I'd especially like to see anything where she argues for animals being property. I'd be curious what her reasoning would be.

Cool. I will work on that. At the moment I've got to go to the hospital. Long story.

Thanks for the discussion thus far.

 

[citizenzen]

Thanks for the discussion thus far.

You're welcome ... you dang cracker.

 

[myowninvention]

Double post...

 

[myowninvention]

How are we ensuring their well being when we are slaughtering them?

Well, they never know they are going to die until they are...already dead, if they are killed correctly.

 

[epepke]

Vegetarian is an anagram of ate in grave. Spooky.

Also "average nit," "tree vagina," "eat vinegar," and "a great vine"

 

[RandFan]

No. I don't reject them. I look forward to reading more from Grandon. I'd especially like to see anything where she argues for animals being property. I'd be curious what her reasoning would be.

I was going to cut and paster her paper but I actually think it should be read in it's entirety. http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html Did you watch the videos about zoos?

 

[citizenzen]

Did you watch the videos about zoos?

I did not see a video for that episode. I saw a transcript at the site you linked to, but must admit I did not read it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Then you could likewise argue that the animals are unaware that they are enslaving other animals and don't deserve that description.

That sounds about right..

 

[citizenzen]

http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html

Okay, I re-read (re-skimmed I must admit) Grandin's article, and besides speciesism, which she says she will not address, here's her only justification for why animals can be viewed as property ...

How can I justify eating meat when I say that animals deserve the same protections whether or not they are property or non-property? The cattle I have eaten would have never lived at all if we had not raised them. Another viewpoint from a reviewer is that this does not justify eating them because that perpetuates more cattle and more care. It is my opinion that having more cattle is justified provided we take care of their welfare.​

I simply do not understand how one can think they are taking care of an animals welfare when they are killing them, often at a very young age. A cow can live 20+ years, but cows killed for beef might not make it to the age 2. That's only "looking out for its welfare" before you drastically shorten its life for your own desire.

She seems to think that humans were responsible for the very existence of the animal, that humans had the liberty to end the cows life at their whim. This next point is a bit off-topic, but I believe related. If we can kill and eat cows and consider them property because their very existence depended on humans, what does this mean for animals whose existence is natural?

How can a human regard a deer as property or a fish as property when they are not a direct result of animal husbandry? I believe the real answer is the one Grandin refuses to address: speciesism ...

spe·cies·ism
discrimination in favor of one species, usually the human species, over another, especially in the exploitation or mistreatment of animals by humans.​

We do it because we can. And because it's been done, we regard it as right. Vegans and vegetarians are simply suggesting that a history of behavior is not in itself an indication of the morality of that behavior, especially once viable alternatives are available.

But we (vegans and vegetarians) are relatively early adopters of this practice, and society has only recently developed to a point that veganism is a viable alternative. Those currently eating meat should not consider themselves in any way inferior, nor should vegans or vegetarians consider themselves superior to those who continue to eat meat. Like many other areas in our lives, we come to realize better ways to live and live with others. Each person should (in most cases) be allowed to come to these realizations in their own time. Eat meat, until you stop wanting meat. If you never stop wanting meat, then eat it.

I tried to argue much earlier against the OP by pointing out that people are far more complex than they were trying to portray them, i.e. "vegans are better people". Some meat eaters may have personal characteristics that easily tip the balance and make them "better people" over those who simply don't eat meat. That viewpoint, someone called "sophistry".

Regardless of any specific habit we have, our goal should be to become better, kinder, more compassionate people to all the beings in the world. That is a difficult enough task as it is. How any person chooses to undertake that transformation (or whether they choose it at all) is up to them and will be unique to every individual. Just being on that path is sufficient. But we sure do like to argue about how we well we walk it.

 

[RandFan]

Okay, I re-read (re-skimmed I must admit) Grandin's article, and besides speciesism, which she says she will not address, here's her only justification for why animals can be viewed as property ...

How can I justify eating meat when I say that animals deserve the same protections whether or not they are property or non-property? The cattle I have eaten would have never lived at all if we had not raised them. Another viewpoint from a reviewer is that this does not justify eating them because that perpetuates more cattle and more care. It is my opinion that having more cattle is justified provided we take care of their welfare.​

I simply do not understand how one can think they are taking care of an animals welfare when they are killing them, often at a very young age. A cow can live 20+ years, but cows killed for beef might not make it to the age 2. That's only "looking out for its welfare" before you drastically shorten its life for your own desire.

She seems to think that humans were responsible for the very existence of the animal, that humans had the liberty to end the cows life at their whim. This next point is a bit off-topic, but I believe related. If we can kill and eat cows and consider them property because their very existence depended on humans, what does this mean for animals whose existence is natural?

How can a human regard a deer as property or a fish as property when they are not a direct result of animal husbandry? I believe the real answer is the one Grandin refuses to address: speciesism ...

spe·cies·ism
discrimination in favor of one species, usually the human species, over another, especially in the exploitation or mistreatment of animals by humans.​

We do it because we can. And because it's been done, we regard it as right. Vegans and vegetarians are simply suggesting that a history of behavior is not in itself an indication of the morality of that behavior, especially once viable alternatives are available.

But we (vegans and vegetarians) are relatively early adopters of this practice, and society has only recently developed to a point that veganism is a viable alternative. Those currently eating meat should not consider themselves in any way inferior, nor should vegans or vegetarians consider themselves superior to those who continue to eat meat. Like many other areas in our lives, we come to realize better ways to live and live with others. Each person should (in most cases) be allowed to come to these realizations in their own time. Eat meat, until you stop wanting meat. If you never stop wanting meat, then eat it.

I tried to argue much earlier against the OP by pointing out that people are far more complex than they were trying to portray them, i.e. "vegans are better people". Some meat eaters may have personal characteristics that easily tip the balance and make them "better people" over those who simply don't eat meat. That viewpoint, someone called "sophistry".

Regardless of any specific habit we have, our goal should be to become better, kinder, more compassionate people to all the beings in the world. That is a difficult enough task as it is. How any person chooses to undertake that transformation (or whether they choose it at all) is up to them and will be unique to every individual. Just being on that path is sufficient. But we sure do like to argue about how we well we walk it.

Thanks. Well thought out and well written post. I fully accept speciesism is alive and well in the human race. I would find that few people other than perhaps Buddhists are not speciests. Most of us would swat flies or kill ants or rodents that have moved into our homes. So yeah. No argument there The question then becomes, is any particular speciesism arbitrary, capricious or cause unnecessary suffering? I think here would be a fair place to compare racism to speciesism. Given no valid reason to differentiate between any group of people, racism is on its face is arbitrary, capricious, and a lot of other ills.

So, what about animals. Given the documented horrors of factory farming I would have to concede that in those instances the pejorative connotation of speciesism is appropriate.

Further, I have maintained for a long time that the long term trend is likely toward a decrease of the use of animals for human consumption. I also predict animal protection for most livestock will improve and I predict that rights will be extended to great apes, whales and other species.

Where you and I will differ is whether a life in captivity is a bad thing for animals. Given that most animals in the wild die before maturity. Gven that we actually can measure many if not most animal's well being through their behavior. Given that animal husbandry provides a basis to protect animals on a day to day basis from disease, the elements, predation, hunger and starvation then I think it a worthwhile trade off.

Now, I appreciate that many find that notion absurd. That's cool, if and when it's shown that a chicken can appreciate its existence and is stressed by the mere fact of being captive (we actually know the size of area an animal maps in it's head to feel confined) then I will be with you on the chicken. Like plants, current research says unlikely. Your strongest case would be for the pig.

Thats probably the closest we will get to consensus. I respect your opinion and again thank you for the discussion.

 

[Belz...]

True. But despite the uncertainty we still need to consume something to survive. The key for me is reasonably minimize suffering.

Right. We need to eat something. The key for me is to reasonably minimize suffering, too. We just don't agree on where the reasonable line is.