PETA and the Holocaust

[Incitatus]

I am curious about something. Exactly where on the phylogenetic chain does it become a problem with killing a critter? Are Rats ok? What about slugs? And why are plants ok? Is not life life?

 

[Cain]

I'm answering these out of order:

Incitatus writes:

I am curious about something. Exactly where on the phylogenetic chain does it become a problem with killing a critter? Are Rats ok? What about slugs? And why are plants ok? Is not life life?

Two broad principles (discussed in Peter Singer's _Practical Ethics_).

First, the capacity to feel pain and suffer. Both are morally significant and deserve our attention. In an animal has interests in maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.

Does this mean that it's okay to kill animals if we do so in a painless manner? It's certainly much better than torturing them to death. Would you rather die without suffering in your sleep, or get burned at the stake?

The second point is the whether or not the being in question has an interest in its continued existence; can it form desires that it wishes to act upon at a later time? In the case of humans, we still condemn murder that strikes an unwitting victim because that victim had hopes and aspirations.

Malachi writes:

Now, as for the future of food, I think that many people are going in the wrong direction with all this organic crap. The truth is that the "organic" movement is counter productive. We should be doing more genetic engineering, and looking for ways to develop brainless animals that have no senses, essentially just meat sacks Same goes for plants. Genetic engineering is what will allow us to stop using pesticides, we should not be fighting against that, we should before it.

I fully agree on the organic crap going in the wrong direction as well as the possibilites for GM. And if scientists could manufacture a sack of meat that does not have interests -- cannot feel pain or see itself existing over time -- then it's perfectly fit for human consumption and mass slaughter. But, oh wait, where does such a beast fit into the preciously evolved "food chain" I'm constantly hearing about?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor:

that terminology doesn't change anything. if we owe animals humane treatment, then on what basis would you say that we don't owe them protection? I can think of no rational ground upon which we could disclaim inhumkane treatment of animals by humans, but accept such treatment of animals by animals.

To what extent is it possible to protect animals from each other? If we could, I agree that we should. Human interference in delicate ecologies has often brought far more than good.

As I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. if animals deserve protection from us, then they must be protected from harm by humans and animals.

Again, how can we protect animals from each other? Also remember that most of the suffering inflicted on animals comes from humans.

How about taking into the account the amount of suffering inflicted upon the animals by producing quantity X of protein? The comparison is not clear-cut, as you present it.

No, you're completely missing my point regarding the argument as you presented it. You observed that field mice and rodents die in the process of crop production. Fair enough. I said that most of the grain is squandered on feeding animals (such as cows). If we rooted out the wastefulness and directed it toward humans, then we wouldn't need to produce *as much* and fewer rodents would die. Instead you constantly go off on a tangent about our current capabilities. Look up the context of a "consistent vegetarian" once again.

------------------------------------------------
Shane writes:

It's not just common for us to distinguish between humans and animals, it's on the statute books. Doesn't the US constitution declare that "all men" are equal? Isn't violence against humans treated more severely than violence against animals? Where is the fact that animals are treated as property in dispute? Again, how many animal rights activists "own" pets?

No, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to men at the exclusion of women. Another historic liberation movement, the campaign for women's suffrage, was once ridiculed in comparison to animal rights (are we going to allow dogs to vote next?).

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. The legal system is derived from our ethical beliefs. If the law treats animals as nothing more than property (parallel to slaverly again), then it's failing to account for the interests of morally significant beings. When I say it's the object of dispute, I'm speaking in the moral frame. In the case of slavery, the law made itself quite clear in the Dredd Scott decision, the compromise of 1850 and even dating back to the Constitutional Conventions.

Yes, but the bottom 10 percentile of humans will still be a lot smarter than any animal.

Okay, fine. So let's compare fully grown chimps to infants. Would you deny that a chimp possesses is more self-aware than a new-born? Or compare anencephalics to dogs. Species is still an arbitrary line of distinction no different than "race," or gender.

Wait a minute, you set the ball rolling here with your statement of endemic abuses. You put the statement of fact before the phiosophical discussion, not me, so put up or shut up.

In fact, I originally wrote:

A fair comparison, but perhaps a political miscalculation. Few people even today can completely ignore the abuse and atrocities carried out against animals (though the farms where animals are treated as biological machines remain far removed from the public eye). The same argument cannot be made over the Internet since it violates Godwin's Law.

An report in the mainstream news on factory farming gets initial widespread condemnation from the public, and various regulations have been handed down over the years (but they don't go far enough) You're the one who started up on how wonderful it is to be an imprisoned cow. And as I've noted at least twice, the facts are informed by the philosophical discussion. If a person treats a cow as an object (as you have so far), then no amount of abuse seems relevant. It's like debating with a theist and saying, "There's no reason to believe in any god of any kind." And then she says, "Why? Prove it!" Before entering the conversation I must always ask a cautionary question: is there anything anyone can say or do to demonstrate that a belief in God is misguided? If they answer "no, of course not," then I'm wasting my time. We need to set goals and objectives before hand... otherwise you get this...mess.

It's a false dilemma, since I've pointed out (and yopu've failed to refute) the fact that market conditions demand that the highest standards of animal welfare are adhered to. I might as well ask you would you make love to your mother ot save her life.

No, it's a necessary distinction. Again, in the case of the Libertarian thread, Victor posed a question toward foundations: natural rights or utilitarianism. The most vocal Libertarians said that the two co-exist (and of course, that's possible in the real-world, but makes little sense philosophically). So we ask a simple question: suppose economic efficiency -- the greatest good for the greatest number -- violated natural rights? Well, they just couldn't wrap their head around it.

Do you want me to quote passages out of Gail Eisnitz's Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry (published, incidentially, by Prometheus)? I mean, I could do that. There's probably dozens of animal rights sites on factory farming, and then there's Peter Singer's book that started the movement.

I am in favour of anti-cruelty laws. They're already in place. As it stands a person can't just simply buy a cow and torture it.

Cruelty, I think we can both agree, implies unnecessary pain and suffering, right? Both of us further agree that there are healthy vegetarian alternatives to meat, correct? Then, according to you, all I would have to show is that current farming conditions, for animals, produces more pain than happiness?

An intermediary case always helps: You would also oppose big game Safari hunting, right? The kind that attracts obese and bored Americans. It's inflicting pain and suffering on animals, but it's quite unnecessary. There are alternative forms of entertainment.

(apologies for the many, many spelling and grammatical errors, past and present).

 

[Malachi151]

that terminology doesn't change anything. if we owe animals humane treatment, then on what basis would you say that we don't owe them protection? I can think of no rational ground upon which we could disclaim inhumkane treatment of animals by humans, but accept such treatment of animals by animals.

Lame argument.

The issue is not absolution from all pain and harm, the issue is the degree of humanity.

Its disenguinous to claim that wild animals and animals raized in modern factory farsm are in the same conditions.

There is a difference between living, and then getting killed in the process of life, and living in a constant state of torture for entire life.

I am a hunter myself, I'm all for hunting, I view hunting as a better alternative to factory raised meet, though I still buy factory raised meat. I think that deer hunting is lame, but its still in terms of a humain was of getting food, a better way then buying meat at the store.

The deer live free, get to enjoy life, do whatever, then they get kille dand eaten, no big deal.

The issue with with these animals raised in factory conditions.

Here, maybe this will be a better explanation:

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=rue-mcclanahan-pig-farm

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=Turkey-farms

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken.html

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/cattle.html

http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/pig.html

Now, view those links and then return with argument.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

To what extent is it possible to protect animals from each other?

No to extent whatsoever. This is why it's absurd to consider animals as being moral agents or moral patients -- because it leads to a useless, impractical ethical system that renders us highly immoral for not meddling in the world to a far, far greater extent..

No, you're completely missing my point regarding the argument as you presented it. You observed that field mice and rodents die in the process of crop production. Fair enough. I said that most of the grain is squandered on feeding animals (such as cows). If we rooted out the wastefulness and directed it toward humans, then we wouldn't need to produce *as much* and fewer rodents would die.

And you still keep missing my point -- that we would save even more animal lives by replacing the vegetarian diet with range-raised meat diet, at least partially. the more range-raised cows we eat, the less pain the animal world is subjected to. Thus, ethically, vegetarianism doesn't work.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Malachi151

Lame argument.

That may or may not be the case, but you didn't address the argument I made.

I raised the issue of of ethical consistency WRT anuimals as moral agents not in order to defend factory farming (in case you haven't noticed, I specifically suggest range-raised meat instead of factory-raised meat). rather, the issue was simply to demonstrate that granting animals the status of ethical agents (or patients, whatever) leads to an absurd conclusion.

Its disenguinous to claim that wild animals and animals raized in modern factory farsm are in the same conditions.

Well, good thing I never made such a claim then! But you, being a very careful and honest debater, have of course noticed that fact already.

The issue with with these animals raised in factory conditions.

Then direct your ire at someone who defends raising animals in factory conditions. I simply attack "ethical vegetarianism" as inconsistent, I am not defending factory farming.

Now, view those links and then return with argument.

How about you get a clue about what it is you are actually arguing against, and say something that addresses my arguments, rather than some strawman factory-farming-defender position I never assumed?..

 

[Malachi151]

Okay, okay, here we go again then:

that terminology doesn't change anything. if we owe animals humane treatment, then on what basis would you say that we don't owe them protection? I can think of no rational ground upon which we could disclaim inhumkane treatment of animals by humans, but accept such treatment of animals by animals.

Yes, I know what you said and did not say, and to be honest I just kinda picked this quote out and then went on to a general statement directed at everyone who was arguing that there is nothing wrong with the way that modern farming is done. So, my statements were only half directed at you, but I can see that I was the source of the confusion.

Now, anyway, I think that your argument is disengeunious.

Your trying to assert that humans should be absolved from humane treatment of animals because it is not in our capaticy to make sure that animals treat animals humanely.

That's like arguing that we shouldn't enforce laws in America because the rest of the people in the world don't go by our laws.

How can we say that people can go to jail for pot when its not illigal in the Netherlands?

We would not have to make the animals obey our laws in order for us to obey them.

Animals are inhumane to other animals in the wild and we have no way to enforce protections for animal in the wild, true. But, when it is within our ability to enforce, then yes, we should. For example in a zoo. If an animal regularly is abusing another then yes they should move it to a different facility, and they do in fact do that, at least in decent zoos.

So, the issue is that if we have guidelines for the humane treatment of animals then yes we should see that they are followed by both people and animals within reason. If you see two dogs fighting and one is killing or maming the other would you just let it happen or throw a rock or something and try to break it up?

The same with animals fighting, that is why that is illigal.

 

[Incitatus]

I'm answering these out of order:

Incitatus writes:


Two broad principles (discussed in Peter Singer's _Practical Ethics_).

First, the capacity to feel pain and suffer. Both are morally significant and deserve our attention. In an animal has interests in maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain.

Does this mean that it's okay to kill animals if we do so in a painless manner? It's certainly much better than torturing them to death. Would you rather die without suffering in your sleep, or get burned at the stake?

The second point is the whether or not the being in question has an interest in its continued existence; can it form desires that it wishes to act upon at a later time? In the case of humans, we still condemn murder that strikes an unwitting victim because that victim had hopes and aspirations.

It is specious to apply internalized sensations to non verbal organisms. All you can say is that such and such a critter will avoid a stimulous, you have no way of knowing how they "feel". Are you seriously suggesting that creatures have "interests", "desires" and "wishes"? Or, rather, do they behave in certain ways that suggest the positive aspects of a specific outcome? Engaging in anthropomorphizing yields the Bambi error.

Now, being somewhat rigorous, distingush between a calf (big brown eyes), a nemotode (no eyes), and a plant (sorta uniform green photo sensitivity).

 

[RandFanJr.]

Randfan Jr.'s arguments are covered above on efficiency grounds.

I read your post again, and then read mine again. Maybe I am missing something but I don't see how you addressed my arguments. On the contrary I would say that I answered your arguments. Humans can only eat grain while cows and ruminants eat grasses, silage and other foods that humans can't eat. In addition, animals such as ruminants can graze on hillsides and other areas where it is not feasible to grow crops for humans. Also, China's long term goals for feeding its people include cows and other ruminants. Considering that China is not interested in profits and does not have the incestuous relationship with the meat industry that the US alegedly has. If a vegetarian diet were truly the panacea that it is proclaimed to be then there is no reason that China would not switch to it.

It really isn't what animal rights people make it out to be.

 

[Malachi151]

Engaging in anthropomorphizing yields the Bambi error

The claim of anthropomorphizing can really only be supported if you believe that humans are not animals.

So, if one is to accept that we are animals, then anthropomorphizing kinda loses its meaning.

As to the question of other than human "feelings" I would say that its likely that most animals share most of the same feelings that humans do.

First you have to recognize that emotions are really the bassist of forms of thought. Emotions are the most primitive aspect of the human experience, and as such, also the aspect that we share the most with other organisms.

Who knows what animals feel what and exactly how, for that matter how do I know what you feel? Every individual feels things differently. Ever been backpacking? One guy can be hiking along fine, the next guy is dying and cramping and in pain. Both people doing the same thing, two totally different experiences.

Claiming that animals don't feel X emotion makes just as much sense as claming that they do, both are initially totally baseless statements. How can you assume that they do not?

Based on the premise that we have no idea what they feel we can then just look for signs of expression and behavior and interpret them.

Dogs clearly express behavior suggestive of desire and interest, as do other animals, in fact just about all of the higher ones, mammals, birds, etc.

It really takes recognizing what emotions are to realize that animals likely share most of our emotions. Emotions are not some higher level advanced form of human gift, emotions are the primitive driving force of survival behavior, and as such, likely the very lowest form though, a form of thought that likely foes all the way down to worms. I would recon that there are organisms are purely emotional, they have no rational thought at all.

Rational thought is high level, emotional though low level. Anthropomorphizing is really assuming that animals are not purely emotional.

Love is the classic example. Many writers over the years have said that love is the height of humanity, that its love that makes us human. Nothing is more wrong. I think that any animal that raises its young likely feels love, even some arachnids like scorpions. Why else would they care for their progeny? Instinct? Emotions are the way in which instincts are expressed, so therefore I believe that yes, scorpions feel love.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Malachi151

Now, anyway, I think that your argument is disengeunious.

Your trying to assert that humans should be absolved from humane treatment of animals because it is not in our capaticy to make sure that animals treat animals humanely.

That's like arguing that we shouldn't enforce laws in America because the rest of the people in the world don't go by our laws.

No, it's not. The key duifference is that laws aren't supposed to be universal, and so a law being applicable only locally is not a problem for a law -- it's a feature. Contrawise, ethical norms are supposed to apply to all moral agents.

the correct analogy would be to say that it would be hypocritical for us to extoll, say, freedom of speech as a moral value, yet do nothing about suppression of freedom of speech elsewhere; and so we shouldn't support freedom of speech. the answer of course is that in this case, we pick the other answer -- we extoll freedom of speech, and try to spread it through the world, by education and cultural exchange and somesuch.

Of course, the whole problem is that we regard a functional ecosystem (with animals killing animals) as good, and not meriting kiling-reducing intervention; but we regard killing by humans as evil, and meriting cessation. this double standard is the problem, and the same problem affects any moral system which assigns moral agencies in a manner that entails this sort of duplicity. This problem is radically different from the problem of local laws.

We would not have to make the animals obey our laws in order for us to obey them.

but we would be morally bound to do something, just as we try to promote that which we regard as ethically good -- yet any sane environmentalist would scream bloody murder at the idea of such sort of human meddling in the ecosystem!

Animals are inhumane to other animals in the wild and we have no way to enforce protections for animal in the wild, true. But, when it is within our ability to enforce, then yes, we should.

You think we should intervene in the ecosystem to prevent killing, if we have the capacity?!.

 

[Malachi151]

No, it's not. The key duifference is that laws aren't supposed to be universal, and so a law being applicable only locally is not a problem for a law -- it's a feature. Contrawise, ethical norms are supposed to apply to all moral agents.

Ah, I was avoiding ethics for your own sake. Your wrong on ethics, they are not universal.

That's why different professions have codes of ethics. The code of ethics applies selectively to the members of that group.

Doctors have a code of ethics that holds them to a higher standard then the average citizen, same would apply in this case to the entirety of humanity vs the rest of the animal kingdom.

You think we should intervene in the ecosystem to prevent killing, if we have the capacity?!.

Obviously not, but who said that killing is inhumane?

I never said that killing is inhumane, I said that living conditions are inhumane.

Even if you want to take the approach of then considering living conditions in the wild. I would again have to say no that people should not make an effort to police the wilds and enforce our code of ethics on animals. Although I do remember one day wondering about this issue and wondering is a day would come when we would decide that we need to "bring civilization" to all animals It's an interesting thought

Obviously though in so doing, enforcing our ethics on animals in the wild, we would put the ecosystems in jepardy, and so, no its a savagery that will just have to go on unmolested, but really the wilds are savage and brutal, etc. This gets off into a whole other debate though.

If the inhumanity can be avoided or prevented w/o putting anything in jepardy, then yes its certiably viable to enforce human treatment of animals by anyone, human or animal. And, as I said, there is no reason to claim that our code of ethics woudl apply to animals.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Malachi151

Ah, I was avoiding ethics for your own sake.

Oh, don't hold back on my account, hon. My poor wittle bwain had read a couple of monosyllabic words from some booklet on ethics I picked up at my papilloerectile surgeon's office while waiting to have my neanderthalic eyebrows groomed.

Your wrong on ethics, they are not universal.

Ethics is universal.

That's why different professions have codes of ethics. The code of ethics applies selectively to the members of that group.

"medical ethics" has about the same relationship to ethics, as imperial accounting to mathematics.

Obviously not, but who said that killing is inhumane?

Ummm, killing is pretty much by definition just about the most inhumane thing one could have happen to them.

I never said that killing is inhumane, I said that living conditions are inhumane.

Well, keeping a pig alive but dirty is worse than simply killing it? Somehow, i suspect that if the pig could talk, it would disagree.

Obviously though in so doing, enforcing our ethics on animals in the wild, we would put the ecosystems in jepardy, and so, no its a savagery that will just have to go on unmolested, but really the wilds are savage and brutal, etc. This gets off into a whole other debate though.

So you agree that animals treat other animals unethically -- that it's unethical for a lion to kill a wildebeest. have I gotten that much right?

If the inhumanity can be avoided or prevented w/o putting anything in jepardy, then yes its certiably viable to enforce human treatment of animals by anyone, human or animal. And, as I said, there is no reason to claim that our code of ethics woudl apply to animals [emphasis mine -V].

My point exactly; this is why we cannot consistently claim that we bear moral obligation to animals.

 

[Cain]

No to extent whatsoever. This is why it's absurd to consider animals as being moral agents or moral patients -- because it leads to a useless, impractical ethical system that renders us highly immoral for not meddling in the world to a far, far greater extent..

No Victor, that argument quite clearly fails if you're striving for absurd conclusions. Observe every human society ever known: no matter what measures we take, senseless murders will occur. Does that mean we give up protecting the weak from exploitation and oppression? Suppose a building catches fire and we could only possibly save 10 out of the 10,000 inhabitants. Do firefighters say, "F*ck it" and break for lunch early? The aim is to reduce suffering of all morally significant creatures as much as possible.

And you still keep missing my point -- that we would save even more animal lives by replacing the vegetarian diet with range-raised meat diet, at least partially. the more range-raised cows we eat, the less pain the animal world is subjected to. Thus, ethically, vegetarianism doesn't work.

How is that? From an efficiency perspective that's just wrong, but fine. If the scheme you describe minimizes animal suffering and maximizes happiness, then sure. The point is only that the interests of animals count, so I see nothing wrong with a paradoxical conclusions.
__________________________________

I read your post again, and then read mine again. Maybe I am missing something but I don't see how you addressed my arguments. On the contrary I would say that I answered your arguments. Humans can only eat grain while Cows and ruminants eat grasses, silage and other foods that humans can't eat.

First, imagine a cow or pig. Get that image in your head? Got it yet? Good. Now from an efficiency perspective, what portions of that cow do you eat? Do we consume everything? Then there's the problem of cow's natural byproducts:

The US Environmental Protection Agency blames current farming practices for 70% of the pollution in the nation's rivers and streams. The agency reports that runoff of chemicals, silt, and animal waste from US farmland has polluted more than 173,000 miles of waterways.

http://www.factoryfarm.org/facts-wastepollutionandenvironment.html

In addition, animals such as ruminants can graze on hillsides and other areas where it is no feasible to grow crops for humans. Also, China's long term goals for feeding its people include cows and other ruminants. Considering that China is not interested in profits and does not have the insestual relationship with the meat industry that the US alegedly has. If a vegetarian diet were truly the panacea that it is proclaimed to be then there no reason the China would not switch to it.
It really isn't what animal rights people make it out to be.

First, why should we even assume China has a rational government that cares about its people? If China wanted to feed everyone, why don't they just become a free-market democracy, right?

But, are you implying that if a vegetarian diet can be proven as more efficient to feeding the world's population, you would switch (and try to convince others)? As I said, that's not how markets work. As an actor in the free-market, I don't really care about anyone except No.1.

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

It is specious to apply internalized sensations to non verbal organisms.

Ah yes, chimps are non-verbal

Which, I guess, makes newborns non-verbal.

All you can say is that such and such a critter will avoid a stimulous, you have no way of knowing how they "feel".

Yeah- how do we even know animals feel pain? You're probably right-- it's just "anthropomorphizing". :rolleyes"

Are you seriously suggesting that creatures have "interests", "desires" and "wishes"?

Three wishes to be precise. Oh, and cats have nine lives.

Or, rather, do they behave in certain ways that suggest the positive aspects of a specific outcome?

I agree- they're probably robots. That's it, robots.

Are you saying an animal has no "desire" one way or the other to being tortured? Stroked? Silliness. We could easily reduce humans to the same sort of behaviorism that pushes us beneath freedom and dignity. *shrug* After all, we are created from animals.

Engaging in anthropomorphizing yields the Bambi error.
Now, being somewhat rigorous, distingush between a calf (big brown eyes), a nemtode (no eyes), and a plant (sorta uniform green photo sensitivity).

I've already outline the tools for these kinds of evaluations. Accordingly, nearly all mammals would be protected. Most birds and fish would also be recognized as morally significant.

Can worms or plants feel pain? Are they aware of their continued existence? See my above statements on growing meat.

 

[Hypocolius]

I couldnt imagine anyone doinga Vietnam re-enactment. That would offend. So might a WWII re-enactment.

Not at all. The last time I looked (2 years ago) authentic WWII uniforms are selling like hot cakes in the flea markets around London, just for the re-enactment crowd.

 

[Malachi151]

Ethics is universal.

In what way are ethics universal? Nothing man made is universal.

Let's just say that we as a society agree on certain ethics. Now, we have a retarded individual who cannot even comprehend ethical conduct. Does that absolve us from treating that individual ethically? Hell no. Same applies to animals.

"medical ethics" has about the same relationship to ethics

Yeah, so? We develop a code of ethics for farming. Job done. We now have a code of ethics that applies to farmers and how they treat animals. This isn't rocket science.

Ummm, killing is pretty much by definition just about the most inhumane thing one could have happen to them.

Umm, no, its not. If so the "Humane" Society needs to change its name We all know the "Humane Society puts animals to sleep

Well, keeping a pig alive but dirty is worse than simply killing it? Somehow, I suspect that if the pig could talk, it would disagree.

See, you're just being difficult

You know, or should know, that the issue is to a matter of keeping pigs clean or dirty. You didn't visit the links I posted did you?

So you agree that animals treat other animals unethically

I'm not sure. If the animals are not aware of ethics then how can they be unethical? I think that's like lying. Its not a lie if you believe it... But if you want to just get to the heart of this matter and call the entire life process unethical then go right ahead. Just claim that the entire life process is unethical, which it is, and so that makes everything acceptable, which ultimately is really true in a way because really nothing actually matters, its all just a big complex deterministic chemical reaction.

However, let's come back down off the super macro view and just acknowledge abuse for what it is.

that it's unethical for a lion to kill a wildebeest.

Killing for survival has always been accepted as ethical as far as I know.

My point exactly; this is why we cannot consistently claim that we bear moral obligation to animals.

Well, your interpretation is not my intent. My intent was to say that our code of ethics does not apply to animals in the same way that a doctor's code of ethics does not apply to patients, i.e. that patients do not have the same ethical obligations to a doctor that the doctors does to patients. I'm sure you knew that though.

As I said, the solution is simple, a code of ethics for animals farmers, or better yet, laws, codes of ethics don't do ◊◊◊◊.

Its useless having this discussion if people are not aware of the treatment that animals receive in modern farms.

Are you claiming that it is acceptable to pick up a dog and slam down on the pavement breaking his bones, repeatedly until it is a lumped sack of meat with no solid bones and suffering from internal bleeding, and as long as we keep it alive, its okay? We can beat id daily and it does not matter, cut of its legs and hang it from a tree, as long as we feed it and keep it alive?

Your argument tries to prove that there is no such thing as ethical treatment of animals, that the treatment of animals is beyond question and that any treatment is acceptable.

Its clear that any treatment is not acceptable. The question is on defining what is acceptable. Yes ethics apply to the way that humans treat animals, its impossible to argue otherwise and make any sense. The question is on what IS considered ethical. We can easily just limit the argument to domesticated animals if that makes you feel any better. We can say that domesticaled animals need ot be treated ethically and then you can apply the animal vs animal logic all you want.

Clearly any half observant person can see that modern farming practices include abusive behavior. The behavior is allowed to go on because not enough people care to stop it. These arguments of yours are just a waste of time and a distract from the issues.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by Malachi151:
Many people in the thread seem to be making the argument that there is nothing wrong with the way animals are currently farmed.

Not only that, but we support it with evidence also.

The laws are written by the animals farmers, that's how lobbying works

Evidence?

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a farmer from 300 years ago to a modern chicken "farm" they would be equally as appalled as some of these PETA types are.

Oh horsec**p! Three centuries ago women were burnt to death at the stake for witchcraft, people were hanged for petty thievery, and public executions were a spectator sport. Bulls, bears and badgers were baited for the same reason. Methinks modern farnming wouldn't have perturbed our ancestors at all.

Where before 1 farmer may raise hundreds of chickens kept in coups that he tended daily and hand fed, and let the chickens out every day into the yard and had to deal with issues like disease and physical care in ways to keep his chickens healthy and doing well, today they use hormones to prevent disease which allows for overcrowding, they cut off the beaks so that they can't peck at each other, which again allows for overcrowding, and we have fewer "farmers" (food production corporations" producing much higher quantities of animals.

Hormones as a disease preventatitive? Surely not? Any evidence to back up the rest of your claims?

The animals have been integrated into the mechanical process of the Industrial Revolution, they are now grown in factories, not farms.

Where I come from free range cattle and sheep grazing on family run farms is still the norm. We have one. Don't forget that the rise in population since the industrial revolution has been almost exponential, and it took mechanised agriculture to feed that growth.

Being in a 10 X 10 room from the time you are 2 years old until you are about 20 years old. You are in there with 30 other people the whole time. You are given amphetamines and steroids so that everyone is always hopped up and jump and tens and angry, on top of the conditions that produce that effect. Because these conditions cause the people to fight the farmers pull everyone's teeth and fingernails out and tie their hand behind their backs.

You're life consists of living in this condition and awaiting food to come down a shoot every day. Due to the conditions everyone in the pen is insane and bangs their head against the wall constantly, etc. You live this way until the day you are harvested, which electricity is run through the floor and everyone in the pen is shocked to death.

Please provide supporting evidence that animals are "hopped up" on amphetamines, that animals are insane and bang their heads against the pen walls, and everything else you've claimed. As I've pointed out, stressed animals are dleterious to meat production.

That's a little different then the way things used to be 200 years ago with farmers doing real farming, and that is the issue.

Back when people were hung, drawn and quartered, for legal and recreational reasons?

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
No, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to men at the exclusion of women. Another historic liberation movement, the campaign for women's suffrage, was once ridiculed in comparison to animal rights (are we going to allow dogs to vote next?).

Did the opponents of women's suffrage compare women to animals?

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. The legal system is derived from our ethical beliefs. If the law treats animals as nothing more than property (parallel to slaverly again), then it's failing to account for the interests of morally significant beings. When I say it's the object of dispute, I'm speaking in the moral frame. In the case of slavery, the law made itself quite clear in the Dredd Scott decision, the compromise of 1850 and even dating back to the Constitutional Conventions.

But animals are intellectually and emotionally insignificant beings compared to humans. How many cows have written great works of literature? Did chimps design the internal combustion engine? Humans and animals are simply incomparable, ditto the laws concerning the safety of each.

Okay, fine. So let's compare fully grown chimps to infants. Would you deny that a chimp possesses is more self-aware than a new-born? Or compare anencephalics to dogs. Species is still an arbitrary line of distinction no different than "race," or gender.

Nonsense, species is not an arbitrary line, nor is gender. Try mating and reproducing with a cat or your brother.

An report in the mainstream news on factory farming gets initial widespread condemnation from the public, and various regulations have been handed down over the years (but they don't go far enough) You're the one who started up on how wonderful it is to be an imprisoned cow. And as I've noted at least twice, the facts are informed by the philosophical discussion.

Look, back up your assertion of endemic abuses in farming and the meat industry, how hard can it be? And yes, quote at length from books, providing a link to amazon.com.

And as I've noted at least twice, the facts are informed by the philosophical discussion.

Sorry, facts are facts. Facts are what is, not what ought to be. Facts cannot be "informed" by philosophical discussion, it's the other way around. No amount of philosophical discussion is going to alter established fact.

Cruelty, I think we can both agree, implies unnecessary pain and suffering, right?

Exactly, and as I have shown pain and cruelty have no place whatsoever in agriculture and meat production.

Both of us further agree that there are healthy vegetarian alternatives to meat, correct? Then, according to you, all I would have to show is that current farming conditions, for animals, produces more pain than happiness?

But you haven't shown that farming conditions produce more pain than happiness. Happiness is a relative state. Animals lack the intellectual and emotional capacities of humans. Animals are happy woth warm bedding and an adequate supply of food and water. Cows don't want holiday homes or cable TV, for instance.

An intermediary case always helps: You would also oppose big game Safari hunting, right? The kind that attracts obese and bored Americans. It's inflicting pain and suffering on animals, but it's quite unnecessary. There are alternative forms of entertainment.

Actually, hunting can play an important role in conservation. It helps keep animal populations at sustainable levels. Otherwise mass starvation and ecological disaster is the result. If this was the case on the Savannah, then I would support big game hunting.

 

[RandFanJr.]

First, imagine a cow or pig. Get that image in your head? Got it yet? Good. Now from an efficiency perspective, what portions of that cow do you eat? Do we consume everything?

We consume almost all of it. What we don't consume is rendered down and everything is used.

Then there's the problem of cow's natural byproducts:

Not my argument. I think that it is a real concern but not enough to eliminate animals as food products for human consumption.

First, why should we even assume China has a rational government that cares about its people? If China wanted to feed everyone, why don't they just become a free-market democracy, right?

So because the leaders exploit Cummunism to ensure that they remain in power you conclude that they are incapable of making rational choices to solve their problems?

But, are you implying that if a vegetarian diet can be proven as more efficient to feeding the world's population, you would switch (and try to convince others)?

No, I'm saying that the efficency argument is not what vegatarians say that it is. If it were the only way to feed the world I would consider changing. As it has been pointed out before, politics plays more of a part in lack of food than anything else.

 

[Jim Lennox]

I have heard it said that if everyone in the world turned vegetarian there would not be enough suitable land to grow the crops, anyone know if this is true?

 

[Malachi151]

Shane Costello

LOL, okay I can se that all your points are rooted in ignorance and you are not going to make any effort to educate yourself so the discussion is pointless. I'm not going to waste my time with a full point by point so I'll just address few statements.

Hormones as a disease preventatitive? Surely not? Any evidence to back up the rest of your claims?

Hormones/antibiotic mixes are typically what are used, but yes even just hormones can strengthen immune systems.

Where I come from free range cattle and sheep grazing on family run farms is still the norm. We have one. Don't forget that the rise in population since the industrial revolution has been almost exponential, and it took mechanized agriculture to feed that growth.

I'm not attacking free range farming, and neither was peta in this display. Why even bring it up? Are you trying to claim that because you see free range farming in your area that factory farming does not exist?

Please provide supporting evidence that animals are "hopped up" on amphetamines, that animals are insane and bang their heads against the pen walls, and everything else you've claimed. As I've pointed out, stressed animals are dleterious to meat production.

I've already proved links to such information. I'm not going to spend all day looking up facts for you, especially when you won't read it anyway. Here is "one more" link that discuses factory farm conditions and stress, in this case with chickens and forced moulting.

http://www.upc-online.org/980401moltrpt.html

But animals are intellectually and emotionally insignificant beings compared to humans. How many cows have written great works of literature? Did chimps design the internal combustion engine? Humans and animals are simply incomparable, ditto the laws concerning the safety of each.

Did you design an internal combustion engine? Have you written a significant work? The truth is most people never accomplish anything significant in their lives either they just live in an environment created by others. Since when did intellectual capability become a requisite for humane treatment? If someone in mentally retarded is it okay to abuse them?

There are animals that are smarter then some people, not that that even matters. IQ tests for animals have shown many types of animals to be within range of humans, like in the IQ range of 50 and 60, which is comparable to a very stupid person. Yet, actually its not a true comparison obviously, but in many ways a smart animals is smarter then a retarded human even if they do not show certain cognitive abilities to be higher, because their mental functioning is normal for them and their and their other relational mental abilities are superior to a retarded human.

But anyway, intelligence is not even the question, it would not matter how stupid they are, intelligence is not a requisite for humane treatment, sensitivity to conditions is.

As I already made a post on this; there is nothing to support the idea that other animals are not every bit as emotional humans are.

Nonsense, species is not an arbitrary line, nor is gender. Try mating and reproducing with a cat or your brother.


Actually species is an arbitrary line. See, when you learn that God didn't create everything individually, then you learn about evolution, and you see that all forms of life form a continuum or related individuals. Now, no, you can't mate a cat to a human, but you can mate a house cat to a bobcat, and you can mate a bobcat to a leopard, and you can mate a leopard to a lion.

Gaps in the continuum have developed over time for a variety of different evolutionary reasons, but everything is related in some fashion. Species is an arbitrary human classification, its not something real in nature.

Secondly, why does lack of ability to mate one thing to another make it okay to abuse the other? Well, a cat can't have babies with me, so its okay to kick it in the head. WTF?!

Look, back up your assertion of endemic abuses in farming and the meat industry, how hard can it be?

I've provided several links already.

Exactly, and as I have shown pain and cruelty have no place whatsoever in agriculture and meat production.

LOL So, your whole argument is that there is no pain and cruelty in agriculture, therefore if we just ignore it the problem does not exist

So, as evidence of pain and cruelty is brought to light, you do what? Dismiss it as not pain and cruelty?

Hypothetically, "if there was" pain and cruelty in agriculture would you approve of that?

But you haven't shown that farming conditions produce more pain than happiness. Happiness is a relative state. Animals lack the intellectual and emotional capacities of humans. Animals are happy woth warm bedding and an adequate supply of food and water. Cows don't want holiday homes or cable TV, for instance.

LOL, just more denial of facts. Here is the thing about all of you type of people. You don't WANT animals to be shown to have emotions and intellect that is worth acknowledging. Because if that happens, if you acknowledge that an animal has emotions and intellect then you have to start taking that into consideration and not treating the animal like property.

Its the same thing the slavers did. They said that blacks were not human and not capable of human comprehension and so they absolved themselves from the need to consider the way they treated them.

There is nothing at all to support the idea that other animals are emotionally insignificant, as my other post already points out. The only thing that supports that idea is denial.

Furthermore, pigs are more intelligent and more highly social then dogs are, and they are treated among the worst of all the animals on factory farms.

You don't want to acknowledge the cognitive capacity of animals so that can justify the way they are treated, that's all it boils down to. If you keep telling yourself that they can't feel the pain, then it really doesn't matter when your beating them on head does it?