PETA and the Holocaust

[voidx]

I fully agree on the organic crap going in the wrong direction as well as the possibilites for GM.

Hmmm and who do you think would be first in line decrying these new emotionless meat sacks as inhumane? PETA perhaps? Who went a long way in convincing certain African nations not to accept GM foods from North America? aps? But aside from that I agree with that sentiment. I don't buy anything labelled as "organic" because from what I understand it takes up more acreage of farm land to produce the same level of "organic" yield, as a conventional crop for no discernable difference in quality. But that's a whole seperate issue.

Now my thanks to Malachi for providing some links, even if they do spout off with every image the words "evil, ungodly, obviously don't care for their chickens, its all about the cash". Now I'm not denying that the photo's on that site show some horrendous conditions, or that they have in the past, or currently do exist. The line I've been trying to draw, which you've been missing is this. Do the current industry standards for livestock allow for this, or encourage this. Or is this just one example of a horribly kept farm? From the webpage with the pics of the chickens, it looked to me to come mostly from one site. And hey, why was it found? Were they found to be against code, or standards perhaps? Has there been improvements in the last 5 years? 10 years? I don't deny that you can find examples of horrible conditions, what I'm trying to establish is have they lessened over time, have standards changed from the 70's, 80's? And when you find these horrible conditions, do they fit within code? The point being this, if standards and codes warn away from such conditions, and yet, to some degree they still exist, then its a problem of enforcement and declaring the specific rights of a chicken or a cow, moral agent or blah blah isn't going to change that much. If you can show me that the livestock industry has not improved in recent decades, and that factory farms with horrendous conditions are the over-riding norm, or at least a significant proportion of the norm, and not just isolated incidents, then I may begin to concede you're point. I'll look into the titles you mentioned, but as always will view them with a critical eye as I take everything, and everyones position with a grain of salt.

This for example is a great link:
http://www.upc-online.org/980401moltrpt.html
And if this was more the point you were arguing I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But its not arguing the same thing you are if you read it. They are arguing against a technique used in factory farming called forced molting. The starvation of the chickens in order to promote starving makes them more susceptible to salmonella which in turn is also heightened by the presence of rats spreading disease as they always do. There is some mention of the cruelty involved in this process, but you'll notice 2 things. Their not calling for an end or ban to factory farming, they've presented a scientific arguement with potential health concerns, mostly, starvation of chickens to promote molting makes them more susceptible to harbouring salmonella. Their not calling on all of us go vegetarian, or decrying the evil factory money mongerers. They found a legitimate cause for debate, and are trying to update the standards and practices based upon that. Not to the animals moral agent rights or whether their "happy" or "sad", but rather that their healthy, and that they, as a food supply, which they are, are not spreading disease.

Cain has asked the following question several times in some form or another. "Assuming horrendous conditions would you support stricter standards on livestock conditions." Assuming horrendous conditions were the norm in factory farming, and that current standards were getting in the way of enforcing those standards, then sure, if I could be convinced they'd actually enforce those standards. I'm not as of yet convinced of any of the statements above. Why would I say yes at all? For a happier and more morally content chicken? No, but rather for a healthier food supply, which let's not forget, is what we're really talking about here.

 

[Malachi151]

Hmmm and who do you think would be first in line decrying these new emotionless meat sacks as inhumane? PETA perhaps?

Yes, and hence it was said that they were going in the WRONG direction.

Now my thanks to Malachi for providing some links, even if they do spout off with every image the words "evil, ungodly, obviously don't care for their chickens, its all about the cash".

I provided others too earlier in the thread.

I agree with all your points.

If the problems don't exist then fine, there is nothing to do.

The issue is that some people seem to be saying that even if these conditions do exist then its still not an issue because these are animals, and so it does not matter.

The issue is in defining what is acceptable and what is not. If peta is calling attention to a problem that does nto exist then so be it, but if their display is showing evidence of what they consider to be a problem, and comberable to the Holocaust, those are the conditions that are in question.

I have not seen their exact exhibt, but I have seen other peta exhibits and I'm sure its the same general theme, which is generally the same as the links I provided.

The question seems to be, do animals deserve ethical treatment at all?

If so, what constitutes ethical treatment of farm animals?

Are farms today obigated to follow such ethical standards?

If not, should they be?

 

[Cain]

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.

How are any of these accomplishments morally significant? Our ancestors lived thousands and thousands of years without producing written works of literature (or even understanding the concept of a written word). The internal combustion engine? Please.

What about the vast majority of human beings who will never produce a finely written work of literature or develop a technology on par with the internatl combustion engine? Please tell you have something more than this to predicate rights on.

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

And you're the one who accuses me of straw men. I said gender, species and "race" are morally arbitrary. Of course we can make a real distinction between men and women, but it's morally non-significant. Wow, I have a penis, so what does that mean ethically? Not much. Someone has dark skin, or they're pale, or whatever. What does it mean? Nothing from the moral standpoint.

Can you imagine an intelligent alien species that has created technologies that exist only in our wildest dreams? Can we recognize their rights even though they're a different species (maybe even not carbon-based)? Of course. The point is that one cannot merely say, "We're a different speices, end of story." You need to point to a non-arbitrary, morally significant characterisitic that distinguishes us.

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.

Unfortunately, Malachi stole! my links -- or so I thought at first.

Here are two videos, one's about five minutes and takes place on a pigfarm in N. Carolina (Scully spends a lot of time in his book discussing these farms).

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=pigfarminv

The other is a broad over-view of factory farming and notes the abuses to cows, pigs, hens, and broiler chickens.

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=mym2002

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.

You're only half-right: facts unquestionably inform discussion, but a philosophical theory decides which facts are relevant. One cannot point to the fact that the Anaheim angels won the 2002 World Series in order to explain a recent earthquake in Algeria. The fact that animal interests are treated as an externality to food production is important; highly relevant; absolutely critical.

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

Hubris maybe? So the vast number of books and videos documenting animal cruelty on factory farms are either mistaken or outright fraudulent, correct? Or, perhaps, we have different understandings of cruelty.

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.

Yes, and in strict accordance with my interest-based paradigm, I would never consider giving cows holiday homes or cable TV. But let's for a moment assume precisely what you're saying (since you lack the imagination to envision horrendous conditions for philosophical purposes): pigs, cows, whatever on Shane's factory farms are jubiliant. They don't get fresh air. They can't turn around. They're way too big. Fine, but they're happy.

This is where animal interests roll around: if they're so happy, why do we want to kill them? If it's morally significant, why would we choose to kill it? This is precisely why the "abstract" discussion matters.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randfan:

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?

No, you're the one assuming Communist leaders are making rational choices. I'm suspsicious of that assumption for reasons contained in the quote.

 

[RandFanJr.]

No, you're the one assuming Communist leaders are making rational choices. I'm suspsicious of that assumption for reasons contained in the quote.

No, I'm arguing that Communist leaders are capable of making rational decisions. Do you deny that they are? What in the quote would indicate that they are incapable of assessing the economic impact of crops vs. a combination of crops and ruminants and other farm animals such as chickens and pigs?

Do you dismiss all of their scientific data or the political decisions made on that data because the leaders are communist?

No political government that I am familiar with has long term plans to do away with farm animals for the purpose of human consumption. I am also not familiar with any study that any government has taken seriously that includes the elimination of animals as a source of dietary protein based on efficiency grounds.

I have been wrong before and I would welcome any such information. I honestly think that such arguments are specious and have no real world application. At least not in any current planning of any current government or scientific body.

Again, I would be happy to be proven wrong.

RandFan

 

[RandFanJr.]

This is where animal interests roll around: if they're so happy, why do we want to kill them?

To eat them and to use their hides and other products for our benefit.

I don't deny that there are problems with a number of farms. I am for correcting those problems. If your only concern is with the treatment of animals then let's agree to work to end any mistreatement of animals.

I grew up on a farm and have not witnessed the cruelty that you speak of. As long as animals are treated the way I saw them treated in my home town then I am quite happy to use animals for food and clothing.

 

[Malachi151]

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/Prefs.asp?video=mym2002

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.

I stand by what I said the first time.

 

[Malachi151]

No, I'm arguing that Communist leaders are capable of making rational decisions. Do you deny that they are? What in the quote would indicate that they are incapable of assessing the economic impact of crops vs. a combination of crops and ruminants and other farm animals such as chickens and pigs?

Well... but the Chinese are also among the worst animals rights violaters on earth. They have practices even worse then American facorty farms already with bears and elephants and turtles, etc, they are driving many species to extinction.

Why would the fact they are are "communist" have anything to do with anything anyway. It's not as if that defined everything about then, they have a culture asside from economic polcy as well.

 

[Cain]

No, I'm arguing that Communist leaders are capable of making rational decisions. Do you deny that they are? What in the quote would indicate that they are incapable of assessing the economic impact of crops vs. a combination of crops and ruminants and other farm animals such as chickens and pigs?

Another thought: we could apply the same a priori reasoning to Mao's collectivization program.

To eat them and to use their hides and other products for our benefit.

Again, there are alternative ways to clothe ourselves. We don't need to kill animals.

 

[RandFanJr.]

Well... but the Chinese are also among the worst animals rights violaters on earth. They have practices even worse then American facorty farms already with bears and elephants and turtles, etc, they are driving many species to extinction.

That fact is not germane to my argument.

1. The Chinese have a vested interest to feed their people.

2. The Chinese have economic motivations to feed their people in the most efficient way possible.

3. The Chinese have invested allot of money in research to come up with long term plans to meet the needs of their citizens.

With this in mind why would the Chinese not adopt a plan that is singularly vegetarian? Could it be that the science has shown that ruminants and other farm animals coupled with crops is the best way to provide protein and nourishment to large numbers of people.

I am confident that that is precisely what the science has come to show and that the "efficiency" argument is specious. I would love to see hard scientific data that shows that large populations of humans can be fed solely by crops.

Why would the fact they are are "communist" have anything to do with anything anyway.

I did not bring that fact up. It is not central to my argument.

 

[Malachi151]

With this in mind why would the Chinese not adopt a plan that is singularly vegetarian?

Maybe because people like meat?

I don't have my old ecology books to quote anymore, but yes in terms of biomass it is more effecient to to feed a population on crops only, but in terms of the human perspective its easier to eat meat.

I'm sure that food engineering and whatnot can probably change this a bit though.

I myself see nothing wrong with eating meat, my only issue is with the factory farming practices. I plan to raise my own chickens eventually. I go to the Bahamas a lot nd they always raise their own chickens there, I just got kinda fond of it anyway.

 

[RandFanJr.]

Another thought: we could apply the same a priori reasoning to Mao's collectivization program.

It is demonstrable that Mao did not heed the science of his time. As a simple example, killing sparrows to save grain was stupid and the likely impact was known before his "war on the sparrows".

To assume that the Chinese would continue to ignore science in seeking remedies to problems of food is to believe that the Chinese are incapable of learning from Mao's many mistakes. While I think anecdotal mistakes are possible in today's China, I doubt that any leader ignores science wholesale the way Mao did.

Again, there are alternative ways to clothe ourselves. We don't need to kill animals.

I did not argue that there was not an alternative. I believe that there is an alternative. However I find the following.

1. The alternative will not necessarily improve the lives of humans.
   
2. The alternative will not improve the lives of animals.
   
3. I can find no rational reason to use an alternative [/list=1]
   The only real reasonany one has provided for not utilizing animals (that I can find) as food or clothes is that it requires human conscience of will.
   
   1. The vast majority of all animals will be killed and eaten.
      
   2. The vast majority of all animals will be killed and eaten (probably eaten while they are alive) shortly after they are born.
      
   3. Animals that don't die from predation will likely die of starvation or the elements.
      
   4. Few animals die of old age in the wild
      [/list=1]
      
      So, eliminating humans from the equation only *eliminates humans from the equation. This leaves, as the only logical argument of those who wish to remove humans from the equation is that they can't bear that humans who have the capacity to feel empathy will kill animals.
      
      The fact that animals will die of predation, starvation and the elements is not a justification to kill animals. It is not a reason not to kill them either. As I have said before, it is at best a zero sum gain. Short of any other reason I find it appropriate and good to use animals for nourishment and clothing.
      
      *If we could stop all human usage of animals it would arguably causes more pain and suffering to statistically more animals. Also we can mitigate the suffering of animals on farms with out eliminating human use of animals.

 

[Malachi151]

To assume that the Chinese would continue to ignore science in seeking remedies to problems of food is to believe that the Chinese are incapable of learning from Mao's many mistakes. While I think anecdotal mistakes are possible in today's China, I doubt that any leader ignores science wholesale the way Mao did.

Right, like the highly scientific Chinese medical practices

 

[RandFanJr.]

With this in mind why would the Chinese not adopt a plan that is singularly vegetarian?

Maybe because people like meat?

Perhaps but people liked their religion also and that did not keep the communist government from taking it away from them.

I don't have my old ecology books to quote anymore, but yes in terms of biomass it is more effecient to to feed a population on crops only,...

I would like to see the data. I will accept that argument in theory. I have argued in this forum in the past that in 100 years plants will grow complete protein that tastes like chicken because it contains the genes that allows it to taste like chicken and provide the good and minimize the bad of the actual animal. Until then I would have to see the elimination of ALL meat and dairy products in a large population before I accepted it as practical.

I'm sure that food engineering and whatnot can probably change this a bit though.

Yes, I agree (see previous paragraph).

 

[BillyTK]

Speaking for myself I've never tried to dress my own desire to eat animal flesh as being primarily an exercise in animal welfare. I've never felt the need to apologise for being an active omnivore, so I've never claimed that I eat meat for the sake of the animal.

That's good to hear. Sorry for misinterpreting the following:

The only animals that have rights are those in the possesion of humans. Animals in the wild enjoy no rights or the protection of welfare laws. Livestock have more rights than wild animals.

I assumed that this was offered as an argument to justify keeping animals in captivity for human consumption, which as I eexplained previously, kind of riles me. If this is not the case then accept my apologies.

Oh please, your not trying to suggest that the natural world is like Jellystone national park?

No, I was simply pointing out the fallacious nature of the terms you introduced, resulting from human judgements about the natural world.

Lions stalking and slaughtering all too sentient Wildebeest? Primates beating one another to death in vicious feuds? Foxes slaughtering far more chickens than they could possibly eat? Tom cats killing kittens? Dominance plays a major role in the natural world. Do you think animals settle questions of dominance by democratic means?

Sorry Shane, I've no idea what that last sentence was in reference to? Are you suggesting that it would be desireable for humans to impose democracy on the natural world, and then maybe eat 'em?

Are you suggesting that the fox wouldn't eat the chickens if it came across them in the wild? BTW the dead chickens I've seen were all free range.

No, I'm stating that the fox's behaviour is the result of their interaction with the human world; typically foxes would only kill what they intend to eat, but the combination of a large group of alarmed birds in a confined space--whether it's a hut, or a barn (hens like to roost indoors, and even though practically flightless, also like to flock) stimulates a different set of behaviours in the fox.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
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.

Actually I'm undertaking doctorate research in bovine molecular genetics and it's relation to meat quality. This means I've observed all stages of the meat production process at very close quarters. My points are rooted in informed opinion.

Or was it my observations on the mores and attitudes of the 18th century that irked you? Are you suggesting that human, never miond animal life wasn't held a lot cheaper back then?

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

Hmm, link? I don't disbelieve you, it's just that this is news to me.

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.

But I did read your links, and they didn't show or tell me anything I didn't know before. I've seen assembly line slaughter of pigs. I can reliably inform you that automated milking is necessary in free range dairy cattle. Free range beef cattle are also housed indoors and stock fed for winter months. Your links are just as relevant for free range livestock.

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?

My point wasn't that intellectual capability was necessary for humane treatment, rather that animals have a different understanding of happiness and satisfaction than us because of their limited intellectual and emotional capacities. Your links made great play of the fact that calves are usually separated from their mothers at an early age, yet animals simply don't see this as an emotionally traumatic experience. Both mother and calf will have forgotten each other in a matter of days. I've seen it on countless occasions.

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.

A link to the study or studies that established this?

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.

Precisely, sensitivity is the key. Where the PETA line errs is that it presumes animals have the same sensitivites as humans. They don't, because of their lack of intellectual and emotional capability compared to humans. You may think that farming is exploitaitve and abusive, but this is because you are a member of a species that has a greater standards for comfort and happiness because of greater emotional and intellectual capability. The animal doesn't think so. As I've repeated many times, it is imperative for narrow economic reasons that livestock are not stressed or abused in any way. If an animal has food, water and warmth, it's happy.

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.

You can mate a leopard to a lion? This I've got to see supported by evidence. Species is not an arbitrary line. You can easily distinguish species using genetic studies, for instance.

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?!

Dumbest strawman yet.

I've provided several links already.

None of which establish that abuse and atrocities are endemic. Pictures of dead animals? I mean come on, you could show pictures of people who died in hospital, put a caption under them along the lines of "Mr. X was strangled/poisoned in his sleep by orderlies" to support an overall line that hospital orderlies are bumping off millions of people every year for kicks. Or you could post pictures of contorted cutlery to support the notion Uri Geller has psychic powers. There's such a thing as standards of proof, you know.

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

I have presented factual evidence that animal welfare is central to meat production. Nor is the "problem" "ignored", as you put it. In the interests of public safety, all procedures involved in food production (not just meat) are subjected to the most rigorous standards imaginable.

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.

Animals don't have emotions and intellect as developed as humans. That is a fact. Hence my comment that no cow has composed a symphony or designed the internal combustion engine. No, I haven't done those things, but my species has.

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?

Stop the ad-homs. I've never beaten an animal about the head.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
How are any of these accomplishments morally significant? Our ancestors lived thousands and thousands of years without producing written works of literature (or even understanding the concept of a written word). The internal combustion engine? Please.

What about the vast majority of human beings who will never produce a finely written work of literature or develop a technology on par with the internatl combustion engine? Please tell you have something more than this to predicate rights on.

I never claimed intellectual capability was a prerequisite for moral rights. I'm merely establishing as fact that humans are easlily more intellectually advanced than animals. With intellectual advancement comes emotional advancement and awareness, something animals lack to the same degree as humans. I have never claimed that cruelty to animals was justifiable. I have made the point that animal cruelty has no place whatsoever in the meat industry. My other point is that the conditions animals are farmed in are not cruel, since the people making these claims are judging these conditions from a human, rather than the animals perspective. We require a lot more than dry bedding, water and food for happiness and emotional stability, animals don't.

Unfortunately, Malachi stole! my links -- or so I thought at first.

Here are two videos, one's about five minutes and takes place on a pigfarm in N. Carolina (Scully spends a lot of time in his book discussing these farms).

I can't open the video links, but as I've said the photo links are nothing new to me. Reas also what I said about standards of proof.

You're only half-right: facts unquestionably inform discussion, but a philosophical theory decides which facts are relevant.

Whether those facts are correct or erroneous are of the utmost importance, though.

Hubris maybe? So the vast number of books and videos documenting animal cruelty on factory farms are either mistaken or outright fraudulent, correct?

Yes. I mean, there are vast numbers of books and videos claimng to provide definitive evidence for the existence of alien abductions and psychic spoonbending, so the existence of a vast number of books and videos isn't definitive proof in itself.

But let's for a moment assume precisely what you're saying (since you lack the imagination to envision horrendous conditions for philosophical purposes): pigs, cows, whatever on Shane's factory farms are jubiliant. They don't get fresh air. They can't turn around. They're way too big. Fine, but they're happy.

If the animals didn't get fresh air they'd die. Neither are cattle to big, and they can turn around.

 

[BillyTK]

Personally I have not tried to justify their fates based on that fact.

Could we be arguing at cross purposes? This is the argument I was responding to; that human treatment of animals which are raised for exploitation (whether it be meat, fur, milk &c &c) justifies that exploitation.

However it is demonstrable that an animal born domestically has a far better survival rate than one in the wild. That they will suffer far less from predation and the elements.

Well, it's got a far better survival rate until it's slaughtered

I was raised on a farm and we took great care of our animals. My father inspected them regularly and called the vet when needed. So I certainly can put my mind to rest knowing that domesticated animals that are not needlessly hurt fair better than their counter parts.

My family's main source of income was chickens and rabbits. Yes, there are problems and they should be addressed. I support reasonable efforts to reduce animal suffering. I have seen cows slaughtered. I know that ruminants in the wild suffer stress on a regular basis. I think many if not most horses in captivity are well kept.

I'm glad to hear you and your family treated your animals so well, but you can't generalise the treatment of all domesticated animals from a single example.

I will grant that there is an argument to be made that the lot of domesticated animals can be improved. I can't see any reason to stop using domesticated animals for food and clothing.

Nor am I suggesting such--well, not this argument anyway

I think it often is. Most animals are killed and eaten shortly after they are born. That being said let me concede that I cannot truly know which life is better for any given animal. However I don't think that statistically there is any comparison.

But in this case, statistics are meaningless; yes, most animals die shortly after birth, so the strategy is to have as sufficient offspring as possible that enough survive. If they all survived, ecological disaster would loom.

We will have to disagree.

I'm cool with that

The very best scenario, the very best mind you is a zero sum gain. You cannot improve the over all quality of life for animals by simply removing man from the equation.

But quality of life is a human concept, and in the natural world is meaningless.

Perhaps you would be happier knowing that animals only die as a result of animal predation and not as a result of humans.

This is a separate argument and not relevant to the point I'm making here.

I don't see the distinction. While I do however think it wrong to cause needles suffering and since humans are capable of treating animals in a way that minimizes suffering then I think we should treat them as such.

I agree! Except that my point is this doesn't justifiy their exploitation; it's that their exploitation justifies (necessitates?) more "humane" treatment.

The fact that a man kills an animal as opposed to another animal is a function of "who" or "what" and not "if" and the human can do so in a way that allows for the animal a much better chance of surviving not only beyond birth but far longer than the average animal in the wild.

No. There is no equivalent predator in the natural world to humans so the two are not comparable.

If I was going to kill a turkey tomorrow for dinner would you feel better to know that a fox got to it today?

Actually no, but this point is not relevant to the argument.

I'm sorry but I just don't see the point.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

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.

Yes; but th epoint is that the firefighters still do their best, even though they may save only a minute proportion of the inhabitants. The limitation here is of ability -- the firefighters are still consistent with their mission. Contrawise, we not merely don't try to protect animals from each other, we actively oppose such attempts. Here the failure to avert the outcome is from lack of trying. This is exactly the hypocrisy -- the fact that you regard human killing animals as unethical, but animals killing animals as not unethical. Had you regarded both unethical, and did your best to protect rabbits from foxes (but only succeeded ion minute percentage of cases, due to inability to do better), your view wouldn't be hypocritical.

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.

Well, the paradoxical conclusion is that vegetarianism is less ethical that well-structured omnivorous diet. As long as you have no problem conceding that, we are on the same page.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Malachi151

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

Ethics is universal within its domain -- it applies to all ethical agents, not just to some.

Umm, no, its not. If so the "Humane" Society needs to change its name

I agree. What "Humane Society" defends is not humane treatment of animals, but rather human-discomfort-reducing treatment of animals.

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?

of course not. As you yourself said, they weren't exactly addressed to me. The post in which you included those links had at best a tangential relationship to my statements -- you simply went on an off-the-wall rant.

I'm not sure. If the animals are not aware of ethics then how can they be unethical?

that's one of the reasons why i don't think we can conclude that treatment of animals can be ethical or unethical.

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

Not among humans...

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.

And my point is that our general ethical code is very different in its nature and origin from something like "medical ethics".

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?

No. I never said that inflicting pain is not unethical -- I merely said that killing is just about the most unethical thing that can happen to a moral agent.

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.

No, my argument tries to prove that we cannot conclude certain treatment of animals as ethical or unethical, based on our human ethics. We can and should make some rules for animal treatment -- but those rules will be constructed rather than derived. We wish to prevent cruelty to animals because of the effect it will have on the moral fabric of society (don't you know about the connection between criminality and childhood cruelty to animals), not because mistreating animals is immoral per se.

Its clear that any treatment is not acceptable. The question is on defining what is acceptable.

The real question is on figuring out how we derive what's acceptable and what's not.

P.S. Understand that your goal in this discussion is not my goal.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
That's good to hear. Sorry for misinterpreting the following:

That's fine.

No, I was simply pointing out the fallacious nature of the terms you introduced, resulting from human judgements about the natural world.

This is the cut and thrust of my argument, too. Humans making judgements about the natural world and agriculture solely from a human viewpoint, using standards of human comfort and treatment to judge those of animals.

Sorry Shane, I've no idea what that last sentence was in reference to? Are you suggesting that it would be desireable for humans to impose democracy on the natural world, and then maybe eat 'em?

It was in reference to an earlier point you made, namely:

Consider this; how many characteristics of people termed "animals" do you actually see in the wild? How does the idea of "jungle law" match with the conditions of the natural world?[/B]

By human standards, the natural world is completely ammoral, hence the term "jungle law".

No, I'm stating that the fox's behaviour is the result of their interaction with the human world; typically foxes would only kill what they intend to eat, but the combination of a large group of alarmed birds in a confined space--whether it's a hut, or a barn (hens like to roost indoors, and even though practically flightless, also like to flock) stimulates a different set of behaviours in the fox.

Have to disagree. The fox certainly wreaks havoc on the henhouse because it was put there by man, but the killer instinct was innate, not provoked by people.