PETA and the Holocaust

[voidx]

Well I don't see how that is exactly contradicting myself. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.

For instance, my cats hunt because it's instinctive behaviour, even though I feed them on a regular basis and they've learnt to expect food at particular times of the day. On the otherhand, I don't eat meat as a matter of personal choice, but I don't feel compelled by innate forces to hunt down any animal I see.

The main reason is probably because of our intellectual capacity, we realize that if we are getting enough food to eat, we don't have to go hunting. You're cat doesn't comprehend this. I was trying to be a bit light hearted by showing you can either choose to see animals as having morale agency, or you can be the other extreme of man scrounging around being his true omnivore self. Suppose I should have known better . But you also kind of backup my other point that switching the scenario to children and cats is just playing to, North American peoples at least, emotions, because of our learned behaviour as keeping cats as pets.

I don't eat meat as a matter of personal choice

Which is a choice I'll respect, but if livestock conditions are healthy and humane, then there should be no issue with people respecting my personal choice to continue consuming meat.

 

[Cain]

But we're not eating "people", we're eating "animals". What makes it possible for you to substitute?

This goes back to the fundamental moral difference. I want to know precisely what makes us "people" and makes them "animals."

I've emphasized many times that species is just an arbitrary moral distinction. We can easily imagine aliens from a distant planet just as intelligent as us, but non-human. What *characteristics* are morally significant?

I disagree. Say we give them as natural and healthy an environment as possible. They are killed as humanely and painlessly as possible. Then we consume them. Would you consider that process cruel?

Of course.

Would it be more cruel than dying of natural causes?

It certainly could be (and most instances probably would be), but I have to caution that these comparisons are not very meaningful. Supposing pig X was NOT raised for human consumption, there's no reason to think that animal (or a replacement) would exist out in the wild.

Dr. Strangelove cannot capture me, imprison me in a ten by ten cell, feed me three nutritious meals a day and then say a lot of people have it much worse. That's indisputably true, but also beside the point.

So if we can find a farming method that removes any unnessary pain and suffering in the process, then there's no harm in people consuming them that wish to do so is there. If the animal lives a healthy life, and then is killed humanely and painlessly and then processed for meat, I don't see the problem.

This would be a vast (and commendable) improvement on current conditions, but in my opinion, it still misses the point. And I said this earlier: if the animals enjoy such a wonderful existence, why would you want to kill them? *Their interests matter*. The pig's interest in here one and only life probably outweighs the meals you can make out of here. There's nothing wrong with eating meat in itself. If a car hits a family dog, for example, and the father's heard dog meat tastes delicious, they could chop up rover and eat him without any moral qualms (though most people react negatively to such scenarios).

Also enough with the child references. As far as I know there are no chicken factory farms employing children to run around and slit chicken throats, IMO that's playing to peoples emotions. Also so is using cats. Our culture is raised to see cats as beloved pets, so we get touchy when their brought into the picture.

I don't see how these are appeals to emotion. So I'm using a cat instead of a cow. What's the difference other than an irrational cultural bias? I'm speaking in the context of morality. Unless you subscribe to some kind of relativism, the example shouldn't bother you.

I used a child as the torturer because some people insist that cruelty to animals could lead to cruelty against humans (most serial murderers first experimented on animals). But that's not the best reason to have anti-cruelty laws. The best reason is for the immediate interests of the animals.

so I guess you have two choices. Decide that it does have said agency and decide not to eat it. Or come to terms with your base animal instinct of being an omnivore and conusming other animals, just like all other omnivore's on the planet and eat it.

I'm not sure precisely what you mean about agency in the first part. Do I have to believe that non-human animals have moral agency? Earlier I distinguished between moral patients and moral agents (though that distinction is open to dispute if you wish).

As for the second part, why don't you come to grips with your evolutionary past and give up clothes? Why don't we go commit genocide? Or maybe I should spread my genes by raping a nubile co-ed? So what if I'm an omnivore. I'm also suspectible to violence and jealousy. That doesn't make it right.

 

[voidx]

This goes back to the fundamental moral difference. I want to know precisely what makes us "people" and makes them "animals."

And at this point no one seems to agree one way or the other, so wouldn't you find it a tad off-base to be calling me to task for eating meat at this point?

I've emphasized many times that species is just an arbitrary moral distinction. We can easily imagine aliens from a distant planet just as intelligent as us, but non-human. What *characteristics* are morally significant?

Not a good comparison. "aliens...just as intelligent as us". Do you then believe animals to be just as intelligent as us? If you don't, which is where I stand, then its not valid.

Supposing pig X was NOT raised for human consumption, there's no reason to think that animal (or a replacement) would exist out in the wild.

No need to suppose. If we quit eating meat and livestock where would it go? Probably, into the wild. And what would happen to it? It would be preyed upon. Would its death as being preyed upon be any better than the quick humane death I described in the post above? I can't see how, at the very least they'd be equal. Now yes I understand we can get into the whole, well cattle wouldn't exist as they do if not for domestication by man, and their our responsibility. But since we can't go back and change the past, it doesn't really matter, so we might as well just deal with the issue at hand. Now by continuing to consume meat do we not perpetuate their existence in a fashion, and well yes we do, but IMO since we've been doing it for centuries anyway, I don't see a problem to continue doing it to support a demand for meat as long as the conditions are humane.

The pig's interest in here one and only life probably outweighs the meals you can make out of here.

Any proof out there that Pigs have "interests"? Or do they rather just have survival instincts? Yes they are different IMO. So that statement should really be, Does the pigs survival instinct outweigh my desire to consume it for meat? A matter of perspective, not morales, IMO.

So I'm using a cat instead of a cow. What's the difference other than an irrational cultural bias? I'm speaking in the context of morality.

The difference is there is no reason to substitute the cow for the cat since we're talking about livestock here. The only reason to do so is to boost its context of morality, which it does, because we all love our kittens and cats. And the last time I checked we're not growing them in North America for meat so its a tad off-base.

I used a child as the torturer because some people insist that cruelty to animals could lead to cruelty against humans

Which would happen regardless of our consumption of meat. The only thing the factory farm would provide would perhaps be the opportunity or outlet for a person who already has problems. But if they didn't exist(factory farms), they'd simply find another outlet. This is a seperate issue IMO.

As for the second part, why don't you come to grips with your evolutionary past and give up clothes? Why don't we go commit genocide? Or maybe I should spread my genes by raping a nubile co-ed? So what if I'm an omnivore. I'm also suspectible to violence and jealousy. That doesn't make it right.

As I explained in my last post I was trying to be a tad humourous and paint the decision as either being someone all warm and fuzzy about animal emotions and not eating meat, and the opposite of a person base and savage and just giving in to his Omnivorious desires. I regret ever putting it that way. However, I am an Omnivore and if I should choose to consume livestock meat, then its my choice to do so, just as its yours not too. The fact that I have the intellect to comprehend and ponder the morale significance, if any, of what I'm doing, IMO shouldn't negate me from doing what every other omnivore on the planet has the choice to do, eat meat. The last time I checked no one was trying to convince me to give up my clothes, or to go commit genoside, or to go rape nubile co-eds, so lets dispense with the silliness. The fact that I already eat meat, and that realizing I'm an omnivorious animal at some base level and that is something I can do and that I personally am ok with that, is not going to suddenly send me off on some naked, genocidal, co-ed raping bender .

 

[BillyTK]

Well I don't see how that is exactly contradicting myself. Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.

First you said, " Our culture is raised to see cats as beloved pets, so we get touchy when their brought into the picture. Other cultures have no such inhibitions because historically there were area's that indeed did raise dogs and cats for meat because of a lack of larger forms of livestock like pigs and cows." which is an example of learnt behaviour; then you said, "Or come to terms with your base animal instinct of being an omnivore and conusming other animals," which is where the contradiction comes in; either we eat meat as a matter of base animal instinct or we eat meat a matter of learnt behaviour (which is why we eat some animals but not others), but it can't be both; learnt behaviour can never overcome instinct. So it's one or the other, and the learnt behaviour theory is the stronger argument, because it's supported by the norms we have about which animals should be eaten, and because these norms change from location to location and across time.

The main reason is probably because of our intellectual capacity, we realize that if we are getting enough food to eat, we don't have to go hunting. You're cat doesn't comprehend this.

The reason why my cat hunts is because the learnt behaviour (of being provided with food at specific periods of the day) cannot overcome the instinct to hunt.

I was trying to be a bit light hearted by showing you can either choose to see animals as having morale agency, or you can be the other extreme of man scrounging around being his true omnivore self. Suppose I should have known better .

Well, hopefully! It's this "true self" business. I'd put the success of the human race down to its capacity for adaptability, not by conforming to some "true self" or following base animal instincts.

But you also kind of backup my other point that switching the scenario to children and cats is just playing to, North American peoples at least, emotions, because of our learned behaviour as keeping cats as pets.

Well yes, it's certainly a provocative device, but that's the point of using it. And here you back up my point about learnt behaviour vs instinct; if eating meat was instinctive, we wouldn't make that distinction between animals we don't eat and animals we do. Mind you, if our behaviour was so instinctive, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation anyway, and some other species would probably be having a conversation about what to do with those damn pesky apes

Which is a choice I'll respect, but if livestock conditions are healthy and humane, then there should be no issue with people respecting my personal choice to continue consuming meat.

Well, my point was I don't eat meat as a matter of choice, which I couldn't do if meat-eating was instinctive. But consider, unless you raise the animals you intend to eat yourself, and slaughter them yourself, how can you be sure that their conditions are as healthy and humane as you would hope for?

 

[voidx]

I see what you're getting at with the learned behaviour versus instinct bit and I'll concede, it makes sense. You're still quoting me out of context in my opinion.

First you said, " Our culture is raised to see cats as beloved pets, so we get touchy when their brought into the picture. Other cultures have no such inhibitions because historically there were area's that indeed did raise dogs and cats for meat because of a lack of larger forms of livestock like pigs and cows."

Which I said in relation to Cain making her Children torturing Cats example.

then you said, "Or come to terms with your base animal instinct of being an omnivore and conusming other animals,"

Which was said in relation to my attempt to draw a picture of extremes, from one person not ever wanting to harm animals because of their "emotions" and "interests", to someone justifying their eating of meat as a base omnivorious instinct. Note however that in this last statement I never implied what animals we were consuming, just animals period, so the learned behaviour doesn't come into play IMO.

The reason why my cat hunts is because the learnt behaviour (of being provided with food at specific periods of the day) cannot overcome the instinct to hunt.

Good point.

I'd put the success of the human race down to its capacity for adaptability, not by conforming to some "true self" or following base animal instincts.

Agreed, but I don't think it changes the fact that we have residual base animal instincts. We just have the mental capacity and adaptability to control them.

Well yes, it's certainly a provocative device, but that's the point of using it. And here you back up my point about learnt behaviour vs instinct; if eating meat was instinctive, we wouldn't make that distinction between animals we don't eat and animals we do. Mind you, if our behaviour was so instinctive, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation anyway, and some other species would probably be having a conversation about what to do with those damn pesky apes

Its a misleading device IMO. If you can show me how there is any real logical connection between an adult worker in a factory farm processing and slaughtering livestock, and a child torturing cats, I'd be happy to hear it. The only one I can think of is to tug at you're mentioned learned behaviour of our society hating to see anything bad happen to a cat, which we keep as pets, doesn't make it a relevant example IMO.

About making the distinction, some human populations still don't. Many aboriginal cultures make a distinction between what animals they eat, and which they don't, but its based upon availability and ease of procurement. If cats where an easy source of meat and protein in an aboriginal area, more so than any other animal, they wouldn't hesitate to eat it. Its only us in our furthered culture and philosophical sensabilities that spend time pondering it.

Well, my point was I don't eat meat as a matter of choice, which I couldn't do if meat-eating was instinctive.

I see how this works in all other animal species. But IMO humans mental capacity certainly does give us the ability to make choices contrary to our base instincts. I think that is one from of adaption that allowed us to progress and thrive.

But consider, unless you raise the animals you intend to eat yourself, and slaughter them yourself, how can you be sure that their conditions are as healthy and humane as you would hope for?

All I can do is be educated about it myself and try to support better standards in the industry. I don't understand this arguement. In every facet of modern life we consume products and services that we do not control or produce on our own. We have standards to try and provide we get the best quality from these goods as we can. Its not perfect, but it works for the most part. If we don't put at least some faith in standards for industries and through inspections and other things constantly update and make sure their being met as much as possible, then why have standards at all? Its a necessary part of living in a society where the majority of the population isn't involved in food production. You could go on all day about growing your own vegetables and livestock and procuring your own materials for clothe for your own clothes and what have you to make sure all conditions are healthy and meet our standards, but its not reasonable whatsoever, nor efficient in any manner either, so its kind of a moot point.

 

[billiefan2000]

bump