Vegans cause animals to go extinct?

[Minoosh]

To the second question, even the Donner party had to eat.

Donner kebab?

That's a joke in Turkish, sort of . . .

 

[foxholeatheist]

Sorry, I have been busy with life for a past few days.

Non-human animals do have brains. How can you as a human, look at an animal that shares so much with us: limbs, eyes, brain structure, spine, nose, mouth, liver, intestines, heart... accept that it can see, that it can get hungry, that it can get scared... how can you equate the possibility that he or she has sentience with the possibility that a plant does?

I allow for the possibility. I also allow for the possibility of lake monsters. Allowing for possibility is not an assertion that something is even remotely plausible, it is the only rational scientific position.

Having high intelligence is not what's important for deserving ethical consideration. What's important is capacity for pain and suffering. Like intelligence, that is a function of brain activity.

I agree. Animals do deserve ethical consideration. Where we part ways is the assertion that they should have equal ethical consideration. I don't believe that if someone hits a deer they should face the same legal consequences that someone hitting a toddler should.

Like intelligence, it is in degrees relative and always lesser than humans.

You should check out this video: http://ar.vegnews.org/vegan.html

No thanks. I'll give the same response I give when a Creationist links to AIG:
I dispute your source and would like to see something from a source without such a clear agenda.

Let me state this again since it appears that it is often forgotten: I have been involved in the production of animal rights videos, both the filming and presentation. I know from close and personal experience that they are not objective nor are they representative.

Prioritizing 'not starving to death' should encourage growing food crops for humans instead of for animals. The amount of corn and soy you feed to a cow over its lifetime would have fed many more people than the meat you get out of it at the end.

I understand this point and it is valid but the solution offered by switching the entire world's agriculture to vegetation only is not a clear cut fix all solution to a complicated issue.

Worrying about the welfare of a food production animal is a first world luxury. A not insignificant portion of humanity can't hop in their Prius and hum on down to the Whole Foods Market when the fridge starts to run light. Quite large chunks of humanity rely on turning chaff and pasture into a useable food product.

The net food output of the planet can feed the world. Hunger, on a massive scale, is as often not an issue of lack of food but rather a problem of logistics and politics and every situation has it's own nuances. Famine is seldom as simple as 'aint no food' in the 20th century.

In other words, I wouldn't be here if my great-great-great-great-whatever, grandfather, did not rape my blah-blah-blah grammie. But in all likelihood, somewhere along the line, I'm sure it happened in my family history. This does not justify me going out and assaulting someone, nor does my personal happiness retroactively make the assault a good thing. It happened, it's done.

Non-answer dodge noted. I still would really like to know how humanity could have brought itself up to the age of Morningstar Farms without animal domestication.

Could we agree that possibly disagreeable acts are necessary?

In any case, our standard should be non-arbitrary. It should not really matter if, generally, humans are capable of introspection or art or whatever else. I'm not exactly sure how those things matter in terms of rights. For example, infants are slobs. I'll say that again: Infants are slobs. Cognitive abilities matter,

Slobs or not, infants are humans. Humans are unique and different in fundamental ways from the rest of the animal kingdom, art and crap among them. I confer on to them, in my insignificant way, rights that I deny to every other species.

So do you not swipe at a biting insect? Apply insecticide or use food that had any (organic or not) applied to it? Take antibiotics? Your line is nearly as squiggly as mine.

Even granting your humane methods, there are workable alternatives. Alternatives that become even more compelling as they become more scalable. I highly doubt the methods you're talking about are all scalable (or, frankly, all that humane; I don't think "meat processors" set out to inflict maximum harm, but it's apart of doing business; if there's any regard for an animal's interests its because of some underlying profit motive, and whenever that's the case you can sure as **** bet that there's going to be unnecessary harm).

Well... I heard someone say something once that made plenty of sense. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

The statement in bold leads to the following inconsistency in the principles you hold:

- You state that animals may have some of the traits you've described as uniquely humans, but because they don't possess them to the same degree, therefore they lack sentience, and consequently it is acceptable to kill them.[1]

- You state that its morally wrong to kill human infants, in spite for the fact that they fail to possess any comparable degree self-awareness, rationalization, abstract thought, introspection, complex communication, art, culture, or an appreciation for Led Zep. Their lack of sentience doe not permit killing them.[2]

The same ethic which justifies kiilling animals carries over to killing non-rational humans, the same ethic which justifies valuing the lifes of non-rational humans carries over to valuing non-rational animals. You can see why this is problematic right?[3]

1. More or less and simply, yes. I can say that is a good rough approximation of my position leaving out special circumstances and all things being equal it is acceptable to me to kill an animal for food. I can think of several extraordinary circumstances where killing a human is acceptable and can speak from experience on the subject.

2. They are still human. What you wrote in the first paragraph: "You state that animals may have some of the traits you've described as uniquely humans, but because they don't possess them to the same degree, therefore they lack sentience, and consequently it is acceptable to kill them."
I consider infants to be humans conferred with rights denied to the majority of the rest of the animal kingdom. Infancy is sort of a special circumstance when I am talking generally. Hang on...

3. You are attempting to force a special circumstance to apply generally. There are circumstances where I would say it is right to kill a human. But not generally. I say 'human' and I generally mean adult fully functioning human.

We're talking about killing which is inherently problematic.

Its not clear why my comparison is invalid, you never state why in your reply.

Again, you are forcing a special circumstance to apply generally.

In fact you seem to validate my example in your second paragraph when you state that infants up to 18 months seems to have no self-awareness at all, so what possible moral advantage do they have over deer? You don't justify your argument at all. At best, you wave away the justification because "fundamental program of understanding the thought processes of another species", without ever explaining why that fundamental problem only applies to non-human animals and never to infants. So (again) what moral advantage do infants have over deer.

They're human. Again, see above.

To the first question, yes. There's no obvious moral distinction between slaughtering animals and mentally similar humans.[1]

To the second question, even the Donner party had to eat. Most people reading this post are much further removed from the state of nature than Siberians. For example, people reading this post likely live air-conditioned buildings with modern plumbing and an internet connection, they could go vegan if they felt like it, and eating animals is in the strictest sense a luxury.[2]

To the third question, an infanticidal maniac probably acts out of malice, where the vast majority of butchers act out of ignorance. And by that, I mean most people are products of their environments and cultural norms, almost no one ever thinks about the moral implications of their diet, they don't think about really fundamental things like why human life matters -- and most, when they do, they may not care, they laugh about it, they don't change their behavior anyway. Really, the vast majority of people don't know why they believe anything.[3]

1. I am open to that. I disagree but I am open to that line of reasoning.

2. They don't have to eat. They could be 'consistent' and 'moral' and die. Veganism is an extreme luxury. Much of the world does not have an efficient logistical infrastructure to deliver fruits and veggies in the dead of winter that we in the first world enjoy. Much of the world does not have the ability to store perishable food long term or lives in a climate that does not support much plant life. Much of the world relies on animal protein and would quickly starve without it.

I do not relegate them to amorality by virtue of their accidental non-residence in an industrialized country. Penn says it's racist and while I don't agree I do see it as a first world concern.

3. Correct, bad example and I retract. I wonder if any vegans are also products of their environments and cultural norms...

With that said, consider your first sentence. Did it ever occur to you that there's a huge overlap in the emotions animals and non-rational humans experience? Pain, pleasure, happiness, sadness, satisfaction, frustration, anger, fear, curiousity, playfulness, companionship, neediness, etc. Its not clear what "uniquely human" emotions a newborn infant has that makes incomparably morally advantaged over any non-human animal.

Oh yes, I find ethology profoundly interesting and the more I read the more it throws the fact that humans are unique into sharp contrast.

The infant's a human, special circumstances don't apply generally and other crap I've said half a dozen times already...

Your statement "there is a line most people have where one species is acceptable to kill" -- this statement is incorrect. Ethical vegans such as myself do not draw lines on species, because species membership is not a meaningful moral characteristic. Ethical vegans often defend abortion, euthanasia of people in a persistent vegetative state (as well as people who consent), and euthanasia of severely handicapped infants (e.g. anencephalic or other conditions where they never gain consciousness). Clearly, its not the species that matters, but their capacity to feel pain, pleasure, satisfaction, have interests and other capacity which shape the ways we treat them [url to another thread]

Yet again, these are special circumstances and I generally agree with the examples you've cited. You are needlessly complicating matters by bringing in all these special circumstances. There are circumstances where I believe an ethical decision could be made to shoot a pregnant woman. Yes, it would be a stretch but I can allow that there exists that possibility.

When we are talking individual organisms you are correct. However, if we're talking generally lines can be drawn with a fair degree of confidence along species lines.

Ethical vegans almost universally hold the principle that, whatever morally relevant characteristics a being has should be taken into consideration. The key here is that most or all of these characteristics people hold (e.g. rationality, capacity to feel pain, pleasure, self-awareness, seeing one's self over time, ability to reason and use logic, practice moral reciprocity, etc etc etc) cross the species boundary, animals have many of the same imporant moral characteristics that people value in humans, so animals deserve moral consideration.[1]

Although you acknowledge the fact above, you seem to indicate that animals have a lesser degree of whatever characteristics you value, and hence have a lesser degree of moral value. [2]I reject your argument as irrational for the reasons mentioned above, but most importantly because they're inconsistent with the ethics you hold regarding the treatment of moral agents and moral patients. Moral agents can make moral decisions about their behavior, moral patients generally can't -- this does not automatically imply that moral patients have a lesser degree of value. [3]Think of it this way:

- an infant and a rational human have the same capacity to feel pain, so they are moral equals with respect to pain.
- a rational human can take moral responsibility for their actions, but an infant cannot, so we may fault rational humans for the harm they cause without necessarily faulting infants.
- infants aren't capable of caring of themselves, so we have an obigation to paternalistic care toward infants that (in most non-emergency circumstances) doesn't carry over to adult humans.
- rational humans can be harmed for being deprived of voting, but infants have no conception elections or a capacity to make informed decisions even if they did, so there's not even a frame of reference to talk about the "harm" caused to infants by denying them the right to vote.

There's nothing controversial about these particular statements. Clearly moral agency is not a prerequisite for moral consideration, moral patients are considered equally with respect to their capacities. The trick is understand that non-human animals are moral patients too, and for the exact same reasons.

If you accept the statements above as reasonable, then the justification for animal rights is blatantly obvious: animal rights is nothing more than a logical extension of the principles and values that everyone already holds regarding the ethical treatment of humans.

I dig it.

However, and yet again, your example is exceptional and I don't believe it applies generally.

1. I agree. Animals do deserve moral consideration. However, whatever overlaps there are with animal cognitive abilities and human abilities I find it difficult to argue that they are equal. Again and again, you must reach for exceptional circumstances in order to represent an example where there could be any meaningful comparison. Every example you cite is subjective and as a comparison to humans, all other animals are lesser than.

Would you state that animals deserve equal moral consideration to humans? All animals?

2. Morality, like I stated before, is a purely human invention and does not apply to animals, at least with regards to making moral decisions because they lack the cognitive ability to do so.

3. Correct. But it also does not imply that they should be considered perfectly equal nor should perfect morality be the absolute bottom line.

Amorality, much like pimping, aint easy but it's necessary^*. At least sometimes.

Let's think of this pragmatically. Let's talk generally and we'll even use an animal that has a high degree of intelligence. We advocate 'fixing' animals to control their numbers. We allow the well off and well breed animals to be intact but want to 'fix' the homeless. However, if we did the same to humans that would be a serious moral question. Why? By some, human population is a serious threat to the planet. Animal populations need to be controlled for their own welfare as well.

Are we violating the dog in a manner that is comparable to the violation a human would suffer through a forced sterilization campaign? The animal simply, as far as we are aware, lacks a similar cognitive ability to be, well, violated or pissed off, whatever you want to call it or even to knowingly submit to the procedure.

While both may experience stress from the procedure, I would argue the human would fundamentally experience far more.

I don't think there is a perfect solution and it is a common fallacy to fall into.


*I don't actually believe that pimping is necessary. Sex work can be carried out successfully without the involvement of pimps. And should.

 

[Meed]

I allow for the possibility. I also allow for the possibility of lake monsters. Allowing for possibility is not an assertion that something is even remotely plausible, it is the only rational scientific position.

It appeared you were equating the possibility animals have sentience with the possibility that plants have sentience.

"I will allow the possibility that animals may in truth just as sentient as humans but cannot communicate it in any way that we can currently detect. I will also allow that plants do so too. If so than the only ethical choice would be subsisting on one's own hair and nails [...]"

My argument was that animals having sentience (capacity for suffering, specifically) is extremely probable, whereas we have no reason to believe that plants have sentience.

I don't understand how your response is relevant to my argument.

I agree. Animals do deserve ethical consideration.

Can I ask what sort of ethical consideration you believe they deserve? I think it's hard to reconcile "the meat industry is okay" with "animals deserve ethical consideration".

Where we part ways is the assertion that they should have equal ethical consideration.

I never made such an assertion. In fact I said I'm not opposed to hunting, not opposed to bee keeping and I give no ethical consideration to brainless animals (e.g. scallops, sponges, jellyfish...).

Like intelligence, it is in degrees relative and always lesser than humans.

I'm not sure if that's accurate. But regardless, there's no reason it has to be a competition. My not eating a burger doesn't hurt humans, so it's not like I have to weigh humans' capacity for suffering against cows'.

No thanks. I'll give the same response I give when a Creationist links to AIG:
I dispute your source and would like to see something from a source without such a clear agenda.

It's video footage of industry standard practices. You can fact check, dispute or disbelieve any claims made by the narrator. Or even put it on mute. You can dispute these being standard practices. You can dispute that they are inhumane. If we were to ignore all evidence offered by people with agendas, we would be stuck in a very unproductive place. The agenda of a person presenting evidence does not determine the quality of the evidence. That doesn't mean you have to take everything at face value by any means.

The types of practices highlighted are an important part of my argument, because I don't subscribe to the "never exploit or kill animals for any reason whatsoever" stance. I'm more of an animal welfarist. I believe that cramped living conditions, debeaking, wing clipping and tail clipping without anesthetics, throwing male chicks into grinders or garbage bins, and many other practices are very much unethical.

Let me state this again since it appears that it is often forgotten: I have been involved in the production of animal rights videos, both the filming and presentation. I know from close and personal experience that they are not objective nor are they representative.

That makes me desire your perspective on the video even more. And your perspective on US farming conditions in general. I would welcome any of your own sources on the matter.

I know the editor of this video's stated aim was to only focus on things that are industry standard, as opposed to isolated incidents.

Worrying about the welfare of a food production animal is a first world luxury. A not insignificant portion of humanity can't hop in their Prius and hum on down to the Whole Foods Market when the fridge starts to run light. Quite large chunks of humanity rely on turning chaff and pasture into a useable food product.

That's simply ridiculous. Poor people outside the first world eat far less meat than first worlders. You obviously don't need a Prius, an overpriced Whole Foods Market, or a fridge to eat vegan food.
The cheapest and most efficient foods are vegan. It is farm raised meat that is the luxury.

An affable businessman in a pink-striped polo shirt, pork-industry consultant Shen Guang*rong remembers his father raising one pig each year, which was slaughtered at the Chinese New Year. It would be their only meat for the year.

[...]

It's no coincidence that as countries like China and India prosper and their people move up the food ladder, demand for grain has increased. For as tasty as that sweet-and-sour pork may be, eating meat is an incredibly inefficient way to feed oneself. It takes up to five times more grain to get the equivalent amount of calories from eating pork as from simply eating grain itself—ten times if we're talking about grain-fattened U.S. beef. As more grain has been diverted to livestock and to the production of biofuels for cars, annual worldwide consumption of grain has risen from 815 million metric tons in 1960 to 2.16 billion in 2008.

Regardless of my view that veganism is not a 'luxury', I don't consider "ethical behavior X is a luxury, therefore ethical behavior X is not worthwhile" to be a valid argument. To take an extreme example, it's a bit like saying the Donner party didn't have the luxury of not resorting to cannibalism, so not eating humans is just for snobs. Or that some people have to steal to survive so being opposed to stealing is a first world luxury. If a behavior is in your power, then ethically speaking, it doesn't matter if that behavior may not be within the power of some guy in Ethiopia.

(BTW, I don't claim that anyone who happens to need farmed meat to survive would be making an unethical choice by consuming it. )

 

[Cain]

Re: Your continued abuse of sunk costs:

Non-answer dodge noted. I still would really like to know how humanity could have brought itself up to the age of Morningstar Farms without animal domestication.

It's not a dodge. It's an illustration of something you asked be explained to you because you were too lazy to read a website. You can say the analogy is uninspired, but that does not change the fact you have on your hands a stunning moral non-sequitur: past behavior accounts for the world today, therefore it's just. It doesn't work with oppression based on race, gender, or even species. If you cannot understand such elementary moral reasoning then you might be hopeless.

There are certainly better arguments against veganism.

Could we agree that possibly disagreeable acts are necessary?

I've said before that if something is necessary then it's necessary, the question is when it's necessary.

Slobs or not, infants [belong to a morally non-significant category based on species]. Humans are unique and different in fundamental ways from the rest of the animal kingdom, art and crap among them. I confer on to them, in my insignificant way, rights that I deny to every other species.

Individual humans are unique and different in basic ways from other humans. Big deal? What matters are characteristics that we find morally significant. Species membership is a poor candidate based on superficial optics not unlike race, gender, or nationality.

So do you not swipe at a biting insect? Apply insecticide or use food that had any (organic or not) applied to it? Take antibiotics? Your line is nearly as squiggly as mine.

On the edges the line is blurry, but I can confidently say mine's not as squiggly as yours. Not nearly. As for this other stuff: I generally think organic food is a scam, but I have not closely investigated the matter; I think it's unlikely insects can feel pain, but feel it's unseemly to burn ants with a microscope; I never take antibiotics because my unadulterated manliness protects me from disease. Silverfish hand-catch!

Well... I heard someone say something once that made plenty of sense. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Now this is a non-answer, and don't think you understand the common turn of phrase, probably confusing "the good" with "good enough." There will never be a day where every human becomes vegan. It won't happen. People will kill animals just as surely as they kill other people. But this fact does not invalidate what you can do as an individual.

 

[Dessi]

Oops, posted in the wrong thread.