Plutarck said:
Yes, and during, or at a bit before or after, the Fugitive Slave Law, it might be argued that American Slaves were some of the most well-off slaves in the entire world. It is kind of like the "honest advertising" line for New York in an old movie, "New York: We had 300 fewer murders last year."
Making something less bad does not make it good.
What do you mean by "less bad?"
There is no rational reason or demonstrative evidence that if we conceded to the wishes of PETA that we would eliminate animal suffering or decrease it in any significant way. Statistically almost all animals in the wild are killed and eaten by predators or die from the elements.
Nearly all animals are killed and eaten shortly after they are born. Domesticated animals statistically live longer and better lives. That is a fact.
The only real "bad" is that humans have the nerve to domesticate and use animals. So we as a society enforce laws to mitigate animal suffering and your response is "less bad doesn't make it good". My answer, no one is trying to turn bad into good. We are just trying to balance the desires of many in society to reduce animal suffering with the desire of others to use animals for food, clothing, research and in some cases exploitation.
You can choose to equate animals with human bondage and human suffering but it doesn't wash. There will always be animals in the wild that cruelly exploit other animals for there own selfish desires. You have no plans to end this because it makes no sense. Nature requires a food chain. Coyotes must eat baby rabbits and Papa lions must snack on their cubs. Mamas kill babies, mamas kill papas and every animal does what ever it can to survive.
I cannot justify the actions of humans because of what animals do in the wild. I can note however that domesticated animals statistically have much longer life spans, less disease and rarely have to worry about predators.
If you are truly worried about the suffering of animals then you should see what you can do to protect baby ducks born in the wild. Most are eaten by wicked, evil predators.
Interested, yes - just not very much...then again, to stick to be more exactingly precise, it could simply be out of a combination ignorance (people are largely unaware of just what happens to produce a given steak),...
I grew up on a farm and I can tell you that almost all of the cows live more than a year. Almost all ruminants in the wild are killed shortly after they are born. When cows get sick they are treated by vets. They spend much of their time lazily grazing and not worried about predators.
Watch Zebras of the night sometime on Discover channel. It is hosted by Brian Denehey. Zebras spend almost every waking second alternately trying to find food, and running from Lions, Hyenas, Crocs (yes crocs), etc.
...and a feeling of hopelessness/lack of control -
I couldn't disagree more. Here in California some ass reached into a woman's car and pulled her dog out and threw it into the street where it was run over. There was a huge outcry. They guy is in prison now. There simply is no rational reason to stop eating animals or using animal products. It wont significantly change the suffering of animals and they provide good quality food.
...after all, if you don't want to eat meat, just consider how difficult that would be for the majority of people; I certainly have. To do so I must almost entirely resort to buying higher priced products, which are more limited in variety, from a limited variety of places, and have next to zero choice of pre-prepared food from the majority of outlets in the vast majority of areas - from my experience, anyway. Thus, while many may think not killing/torturing/consuming animals to be of some utility, it is not of sufficient marginal utility in various ways, or one is simply unaware of the situation.
I don't really understand what it is that you are getting to.
Most people don't want animals to suffer needlessly. Being raised on a farm and then slaughtered to provide sustenance for humans is not "suffering needlessly". So most people do not care.
As to there being no rational basis for not eating meat, I would of course disagree, in the same way that there is/was a rational basis for abolishing slavery.
Well by all means disagree. But it simply does not wash. We simply do not give animals the same rights as humans. If we did we would have to stop foxes from eating baby birds. Animal rights activists do not want to give animals the same rights as humans. It would simply be impractical. How can we protect mule deer from mountain lions. In other words non human animals are not born with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In fact they are born with an almost iron clad guarantee that they will be killed and eaten by a predator. That is if they are lucky enough not to die from the elements before a predator can get to them.
No, the only rights animal rights activist want to give animals is the right to die of unnatural causes in the wild. Sorry but that fact does little for me and it does little for other people to. Most people get this fact and know that domestic or wild animals are killed. Simple fact, nothing is going to stop it. If you feel better that the wolf kills Bambi then by all means don't eat meat. But most people understand the role of animals in the world and there is no rational reason not to eat animals.
The problem there, and I would argue here, is a moral system based upon obsolete concepts - there, that any of various slave classes were not valid moral agents due to a variety of reasons (racism being the most recent), to the present case of "specism", where what is and is not a valid moral agent is sorted out by biological taxonomy, which is only the slightest bit less arbitrary and absurd.
When slavery ended in the United States it was a significant step towards improving the lives of Blacks. It wasn't any where enough to solving the problems but an important step non the less.
If you could show that the lot of animals could be improved if humans were removed from the equation then I could accept the analogy of slaves. This is not the case. We cannot alter the fact that animals are born to a fate that we simply cannot change. It is impossible. We can only remove man from the equation.
And I honestly believe that domesticated animals live a far better life than wild ones. Wild and natural life is beautiful but it is misleading also. Animals in the wild spend almost all of their time trying to survive.
Domesticated animals spend most of their time eating and hanging out.
Now, would I work to stop slavery if the situation looked hopeless? Yes, I hope so. Why, call me crazy but I think humans are different.
Cutting things a bit short, I would argue that empathy, pain, and suffering are most intimately related to a more rational and useful morality...but that is slightly beside the point.
Today I watched a show on the discovery channel about grizzly bears. On the show was an orphaned cub that was expected to die. I felt for it. I wondered why they couldn't intervene and save the bear. Others have intervened and saved orphaned bears. Why couldn't this man who was passionate about saving endangered bears (so passionate that he refused to say where he studied the bears for fear of alerting poachers) save this one cub?
Oh, and finally, fur is of course still fully legal for uses of nothing more than fashion,
I don't have a problem with that fact alone. I would like to see changes in the way that they are killed but I'm not against fur in principle.
PETA does/did so much better when it actually focused on such things...but then, I suspect it has been taken over by very different interests, having less to do with animals and suffering than to do with their own images, careers, and fame/ego-centered utility seeking...oh, and fools who don't know ◊◊◊◊ about economics or persuasion.
I would support PETA if there mission was to reduce the suffering of animals. I have heard anecdotal stories of how people have asked PETA to help in certain cases but they refused because they were not high profile or something. I don't know if such cases are the rule or exceptions or simply rumor. I tend to think they are the rule.
I respect your opinion Plutarck but I have spent a life considering this question. I have slaughtered animals for food and profit including chickens and rabbits. I find nothing at all immoral or wrong with using animals as food.
I would never hunt just for sport and I support honest efforts to reduce needless suffering of animals.
RandFan.
