What is your excuse for killing animals?

[phantomb]

I think comparing women's rights to animal rights would not please many feminists

Could be. I still think it was a legitimate comparison for the sake of this discussion.

neither would assuming those rights only came to be because the men needed the women to "take their place".

It wasn't really an assumption. I explained why I think it was a factor and only went so far as to say that rights tend to be granted in such environments, with specific historical examples.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Could be. I still think it was a legitimate comparison for the sake of this discussion.



It wasn't really an assumption. I explained why I think it was a factor and only went so far as to say that rights tend to be granted in such environments, with specific historical examples.

The difference is animals will never demand rights. There's no example in history of an oppressed group gaining rights without them actively campaigning for it. And there won't be a cow equivalent of Martin Luther King Jr., no chicken sitting in the white people's part of the bus, no pig pretending to be a man to vote. All we have is a minority of people claiming animals should have rights, and there never will be justification for that demand that's comparable to the justification of equal rights for all humans.

 

[phantomb]

The difference is animals will never demand rights. There's no example in history of an oppressed group gaining rights without them actively campaigning for it. And there won't be a cow equivalent of Martin Luther King Jr., no chicken sitting in the white people's part of the bus, no pig pretending to be a man to vote. All we have is a minority of people claiming animals should have rights

I don't see how that difference is particularly important. Animals don't have a cow equivalent of Martin Luther King Jr. or a chicken sitting in the white people's part of the bus, they have animal rights activists to demand rights for them.

there never will be justification for that demand that's comparable to the justification of equal rights for all humans.

Debatable.

 

[politas]

Now lets take a step back and look at this. animal rights activists aren't asking that animals should get every right granted to humans, right?

You aren't suggesting we should let rabbits vote or adopt human children?

And I think everyone here agrees that it is our duty to not cause pain to animals needlessly. I suppose you can call that a right that we are granting animals. Personally, I think it's a silly term, but whatever.

Animal rights are not the same as human rights That's indisputable. The debate should not be on whether we grant "rights" to animals, but on which "rights" we grant to animals.

 

[phantomb]

I think everyone here agrees that it is our duty to not cause pain to animals needlessly.

I don't. Some animals naturally invoke an emotional response in most people, myself included. These are the "cute" animals and other animals that we empathize easily with because they remind us of ourselves. Because of this response, I would not hurt these animals needlessly, and I am in favor of laws against doing so because it is a mentally unhealthy activity.

Other animals do not naturally invoke an emotional response in most people. Insects would be a good example of a type of animal that does not inspire empathy easily. I don't typically have an issue with hurting these animals for trivial reasons myself (I don't give much thought to the ants I step on while walking down the street), and since hurting these animals is probably not unhealthy and is, in fact, almost completely unavoidable, I am not in favor of laws to protect them.

 

[Drudgewire]

You aren't suggesting we should let rabbits vote or adopt human children?

Giving rabbits the vote? That's just silly.

Chickens maybe, but only the ones who can consistently win at tic tac toe.

 

[bruto]

I don't. Some animals naturally invoke an emotional response in most people, myself included. These are the "cute" animals and other animals that we empathize easily with because they remind us of ourselves. Because of this response, I would not hurt these animals needlessly, and I am in favor of laws against doing so because it is a mentally unhealthy activity.

Other animals do not naturally invoke an emotional response in most people. Insects would be a good example of a type of animal that does not inspire empathy easily. I don't typically have an issue with hurting these animals for trivial reasons myself (I don't give much thought to the ants I step on while walking down the street), and since hurting these animals is probably not unhealthy and is, in fact, almost completely unavoidable, I am not in favor of laws to protect them.

Even for those animals we are accustomed to ignoring, or hurting without much regard, there are usually some boundaries - something we might still consider a "right" against gratuitous suffering. You can step on an ant or swat a fly (or, as the old song goes, slug a bug, approach a roach, or stick a tick in the middle of a plant....), but most of us would consider it a different matter if you pulled its legs off or roasted it on the sidwalk with a magnifying glass, simply to make it suffer.

One can say "you shouldn't torture even an ant" without suggesting that this be codified into a law.

 

[Slimething]

Personally, I think a major reason humans (on their good days) are more important than animals is that humans are capable of rising above their instinctive behaviour. For example we are capable of using reason to evaluate whether individual instinctive urges, such as the urge to rape or eat meat, are morally defensible to act on or not.

All that is your projection of right and wrong on what people do. It has nothing to do with instinct. It has everything to do with your approving of people demonstrating behavior that you approve of. For example, my instinct is to laugh at your hubris but I could control it if there was a smokin' hot chick watching that seemed to agree with you. Would you deem me more important than an animal then? Sure hope not.

Some people of course never get to that stage.

Too funny. You need to get out more. Fight your instinct to stay in and think up dumb ideas.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

All that is your projection of right and wrong on what people do.

Correct.

It has nothing to do with instinct. It has everything to do with your approving of people demonstrating behavior that you approve of.

Also correct. The question is, do I approve or disapprove for idiotic reasons, or for coherent and useful ones?

For example, my instinct is to laugh at your hubris but I could control it if there was a smokin' hot chick watching that seemed to agree with you. Would you deem me more important than an animal then? Sure hope not.

Based on this exchange, no.

 

[Slimething]

Also correct. The question is, do I approve or disapprove for idiotic reasons, or for coherent and useful ones?

Again, you are imposing your value judgments on systems that don't care.

Based on this exchange, no.

Again, this system finds you superfluous.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Again, you are imposing your value judgments on systems that don't care.

That's the nature of moral judgments, I think you'll find.

 

[CriticalSock]

Animals shouldn't have rights, they should be treated as a resource. And as such lovingly and carefully husbanded as a valuable asset.

I live near the Cotswold Wildlife Park, which has a large rare breeds section. This contains breeds of sheep, pigs, goats and cows which are no longer commercially viable. Without strict conservation these breeds would be gone from off the face of the earth.

If only those poor creatures were still viable as meat animals or for leather or wool, then their survival would be assured.

The same thing is true for game animals as RenaissanceBiker pointed out. The deer herds are larger and no doubt healthier under proper management.

 

[SonOfLaertes]

What's the difference? You are arguing that if it is ever okay to eat meat, it's okay to eat meat whenever we want. Why doesn't this argument work for you when it's something other than eating meat? If it's ever okay to punch someone it's always okay, if it's ever okay to rape it's always okay, if it's ever okay to assassinate someone it's always okay?

This seems to me to be blatant special pleading. You made up an argument to defend meat eating, but you won't apply that argument to any other behaviour and you resort to empty insults when this is pointed out.

It's not special pleading. It's OK because domestic meat populations would have to be managed just like wild animal populations if we didn't use them as meat. They are no different than wild populations. So your rape and punch examples are strawmen.

I didn't insult anybody. Where did I insult somebody?

One more time, using very simple words.

Natural does not mean good.

Lots of natural things are really bad.

Lots of unnatural things are really good.

One more time- I never said all natural things are good. In this context only, I am contending that we should assume our natural role as apex predator. Stop putting strawmen in my mouth.

You're making two very simple and very common mistakes about evolution. You think that "fitness" means something other than "fitness for this one niche the species is in right at this very second", and you think that "fitness" is a good in and of itself.

Fitness does not mean awesomeness. A three-toed sloth is as fit in the evolutionary sense as a cheetah.

Unleashing predators on a species is not doing it a favour, unless you have a pre-existing idea that a species adapted to deal with that predator is better. Doing so will not make the species "better" or "worse", merely different.

I don't think any of the above straw.

Who said fitness means awesomeness? Another strawman. I am saying something a lot simpler than you are trying to portray - wild (and domestic!) animals must be culled. Hunting is the best available method. Your unsupported statements that predation has no effect on fitness are wrong. Hunting in areas where animal populations are balanced is hard. Wily, fit animals get away. They breed. Their genes get passed on.

If culling of animal populations was not neccesary than you might have a semblance of an argument. This is the part you are carefully avoiding.

If you don't get this, you don't get evolution.

Nice try.

 

[Mark6]

Bacteria have no nervous system, feel no pain. They are not sentient beings. Chemical reactions don’t care if they live or die.

Reminds me of one conformed vegetarian I knew once who HAD to eat meat. She had some unusual metabolic problem, the bottom line of which was, she had to consume certain amount of animal protein, or she would die.

After much soul-searching she settled on clams. They are close enough to plants.

 

[NewtonTrino]

To the extent that humans can rise above being creatures of instinct, we're better and more important than animals.

But only to that extent.

If the best justification you can come up with for killing and eating a conscious being is "Hurr... tasty!" then you're on the same moral level as, say, a hyena.

That doesn't mean that there aren't better justifications that might work for you. Some have been posted in this thread already. However if you don't have one and don't see the need for one then you're not a moral being at all in the sense I understand it. You're just a puppet of instinct and social conditioning.

I guess I'm a hyena because I don't see why a justification is needed for eating meat.

Keep in mind I'm against animal cruelty and have already stated I would be happy to pay more for meat to improve living conditions. But as far as eating meat it's simply part of the natural order of things.

 

[Mark6]

I guess I'm a hyena because I don't see why a justification is needed for eating meat.

Keep in mind I'm against animal cruelty and have already stated I would be happy to pay more for meat to improve living conditions. But as far as eating meat it's simply part of the natural order of things.

Second that.

Frankly, this thread's title is a "When did you stop beating your wife?" debating tactic. It is called "begging the question". I have no "justification" for killing animals because I am an omnivorous predator.

 

[Slimething]

That's the nature of moral judgments, I think you'll find.

No, really?

What was your point again? This discussion wouldn't amount to anything unless we what? Realize the difference between logic and opinion? I gave you logic and all you've given me is opinion.

The universe is a cold, dark place. It doesn't care what you think. Eat meat or don't. Be happy. You're dust anyway. Get over yourself.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's not special pleading. It's OK because domestic meat populations would have to be managed just like wild animal populations if we didn't use them as meat. They are no different than wild populations. So your rape and punch examples are strawmen.

I didn't insult anybody. Where did I insult somebody?

You referred to a point that you could not refute as "foolish", which implies that I was a fool for making it.

One more time- I never said all natural things are good. In this context only, I am contending that we should assume our natural role as apex predator. Stop putting strawmen in my mouth.

That completely fails to dig you out of your hole. All it shows is that you're inconsistent (because you don't apply the naturalistic fallacy generally) and also in error (because you are applying the naturalistic fallacy in this one case).

Who said fitness means awesomeness? Another strawman. I am saying something a lot simpler than you are trying to portray - wild (and domestic!) animals must be culled. Hunting is the best available method. Your unsupported statements that predation has no effect on fitness are wrong. Hunting in areas where animal populations are balanced is hard. Wily, fit animals get away. They breed. Their genes get passed on.

You are still confused about what "fitness" means in the context of evolution. "Fitness" only means the ability to pass on your genes in your current environment.

If you introduce predation, then the predated population will usually become fitter for their new environment in the sense that they are better at evading predators. If you did not introduce predation, those same adaptations would make the species less fit because wasting energy on being able to run away better rather than breed better would be wasted energy.

The kakapo and the three toed sloth in the environments they evolved in are not less fit (in the evolutionary sense) than the deer or the cheetah.

If culling of animal populations was not neccesary than you might have a semblance of an argument. This is the part you are carefully avoiding.

I've addressed this point already, so you are not being honest. The vast majority of meat in the modern diet, particularly in the diet of US citizens who get the bulk of their meat from factory farming, does not come from "culling" wild animals.

There's not much of an argument I can see against eating carrion or road kill, for example. It's dead anyway, so who cares? However the fact that it's okay to eat meat in that situation doesn't magically make factory farming the moral equivalent of eating found meat.

So let's check where we're up to. You're still engaging in the naturalistic fallacy, you're still misunderstanding Darwin badly, and you're still trying to prove by naked assertion that if eating culled wildlife is okay then all meat eating is magically okay too. That's at least three problems with your position, any one of which is enough to demolish it.

Are you actually going to address any of those problems, or can I safely write you off as completely irrational like Slimething?

 

[Manopolus]

I actually HAVE killed farm animals for food, by the way... some of which I have raised from birth (we raised our own chickens for meat when I was growing up, and I've also worked in a slaughterhouse for beef). Let me just say, I have no problem with killing farm animals whatsoever -- it never bothered me a bit. THEY AREN'T PETS!!

I suppose that there is an alternative. We could cut off, say, a leg, and let the creatures live out the rest of their lives maimed so we can have some meat, but somehow I think that would be a little less humane. Not eating meat was never an option, as far as I've ever been concerned. Humans are designed to eat meat, and a lack of meat has as much of a tendency to cause health problems as eating too much of it does.

If life was fair, then I suspect that cows and chickens would as readily fight and kill me for food as I do them, and would possess as great of a capacity to do so... I find that more palatable than becoming a vegetarian, personally.

Strife, struggle, and violence are a necessary part of existence. To try to ban these things completely from human experience and activity is ridiculous. To deny ourselves meat is to condemn our own biology.

 

[Slimething]

Are you actually going to address any of those problems, or can I safely write you off as completely irrational like Slimething?

So, instead of replying to me directly, you now give your opinion in replies to others? What happened to the logic that you were advertising? I guess you're long on one and short on the other.

Try being less of a goofball. You'd be a lot happier.