What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Ron_Tomkins]

I have a delicious chicken in the oven, baking right now.

Was I supposed to ask him for permission before doing that?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have a delicious chicken in the oven, baking right now.

Was I supposed to ask him for permission before doing that?

I do find this attitude fascinating and wonder why we see it here so often.

If we have a thread debating the morality of capital punishment, we don't get many posters saying "Hurr hurr, I love capital punishment, we're executing someone right now!" as if it was an intelligent contribution to the thread.

If we have a thread debating the morality of charging money for psychic readings, we don't get many posters saying "Hurr hurr, I love taking money from stupid people, I'm doing a psychic reading right now!" as if it was an intelligent contribution to the thread.

The same goes for any other moral issue that gets discussed.

However when it comes to meat eating, there's a definite oversupply of people who seem to feel enormously clever for butting into the thread and saying "Hurr hurr, I like meat, I'm eating meat right now!". I'm not sure why they think is is on topic, or demonstrates anything positive about them as human beings, but they sure do flock to these threads to make their statement.

I'm not attempting to insult the people who post "I eat meat and I think it's okay for reasons X, Y and Z". Usually reasons X, Y and Z don't stand up to any scrutiny at all, but at least those people are trying to engage in a discussion. I'm wondering about the psychology of people who feel compelled to make posts which express nothing but their own claimed lack of interest in discussion.

Is it cognitive dissonance? Do they realise there is a genuine moral problem which goes to the heart of their everyday activities, and try to pass it off as a joke? Is it mob mentality - they know that what they want to do is wrong, so they want to make sure they have numbers on their side when they do it? Or is the simplest explanation correct and they really are incapable of any kind of thinking beyond "meat is tasty"?

 

[Manopolus]

I have a delicious chicken in the oven, baking right now.

Was I supposed to ask him for permission before doing that?

Yeah, I always did that every time before I cut one's head off. If it actually said "no, don't kill me, please," or made any verbal reply, I woulda spared it. (OK, maybe not, but there's humor in there somewhere).

BTW: Unlike pets, animals grown for food are not particularly sociable relative to humans... it's actually rather hard to have a social relationship with a cow or a chicken like some do with a dog. They seem to make no particular attachments, and their interest in us is basically the same as our interest in them: that is, we provide them with food (grain, generally).

 

[Mirrorglass]

I do find this attitude fascinating and wonder why we see it here so often.

If we have a thread debating the morality of capital punishment, we don't get many posters saying "Hurr hurr, I love capital punishment, we're executing someone right now!" as if it was an intelligent contribution to the thread.

If we have a thread debating the morality of charging money for psychic readings, we don't get many posters saying "Hurr hurr, I love taking money from stupid people, I'm doing a psychic reading right now!" as if it was an intelligent contribution to the thread.

The same goes for any other moral issue that gets discussed.

However when it comes to meat eating, there's a definite oversupply of people who seem to feel enormously clever for butting into the thread and saying "Hurr hurr, I like meat, I'm eating meat right now!". I'm not sure why they think is is on topic, or demonstrates anything positive about them as human beings, but they sure do flock to these threads to make their statement.

I'm not attempting to insult the people who post "I eat meat and I think it's okay for reasons X, Y and Z". Usually reasons X, Y and Z don't stand up to any scrutiny at all, but at least those people are trying to engage in a discussion. I'm wondering about the psychology of people who feel compelled to make posts which express nothing but their own claimed lack of interest in discussion.

Is it cognitive dissonance? Do they realise there is a genuine moral problem which goes to the heart of their everyday activities, and try to pass it off as a joke? Is it mob mentality - they know that what they want to do is wrong, so they want to make sure they have numbers on their side when they do it? Or is the simplest explanation correct and they really are incapable of any kind of thinking beyond "meat is tasty"?

You're comparing the discussion to the wrong threads. To the people who condone meat-eating, the explanation of animal rights are as ridiculous as explanations of the workings of psi or teachings of God. They don't believe "animal rights" exist, so to them, your point is indistinguishable from a paranormal claim. That's why you get sarcastic replies. They're humorous, but the main point the jokers are making is they think your position is ridiculous.

Also, I discussed the punishment of criminals in a thread not long ago. While there weren't as many jokes, there certainly were many posts where the content was essentially "those bastards deserve to die, painfully". And if you look at this thread, you'll find plenty of jokes made about cruelly punishing criminals.

 

[Manopolus]

I do find this attitude fascinating and wonder why we see it here so often.

If we have a thread debating the morality of capital punishment, we don't get many posters saying "Hurr hurr, I love capital punishment, we're executing someone right now!" as if it was an intelligent contribution to the thread.

If we have a thread debating the morality of charging money for psychic readings, we don't get many posters saying "Hurr hurr, I love taking money from stupid people, I'm doing a psychic reading right now!" as if it was an intelligent contribution to the thread.

The same goes for any other moral issue that gets discussed.

However when it comes to meat eating, there's a definite oversupply of people who seem to feel enormously clever for butting into the thread and saying "Hurr hurr, I like meat, I'm eating meat right now!". I'm not sure why they think is is on topic, or demonstrates anything positive about them as human beings, but they sure do flock to these threads to make their statement.

I'm not attempting to insult the people who post "I eat meat and I think it's okay for reasons X, Y and Z". Usually reasons X, Y and Z don't stand up to any scrutiny at all, but at least those people are trying to engage in a discussion. I'm wondering about the psychology of people who feel compelled to make posts which express nothing but their own claimed lack of interest in discussion.

Is it cognitive dissonance? Do they realise there is a genuine moral problem which goes to the heart of their everyday activities, and try to pass it off as a joke? Is it mob mentality - they know that what they want to do is wrong, so they want to make sure they have numbers on their side when they do it? Or is the simplest explanation correct and they really are incapable of any kind of thinking beyond "meat is tasty"?

But there isn't any moral problem there. If you actually grew up in farm country you would understand the attitude that we provide them with food, and they provide us food in return. We have no responsibility to care for these animals inherently, and many of them would die in the wild long before they do when we care for them.

We give them vaccinations to prevent disease, we make sure that they are always fed, we do many things to care for their needs. Why do you think that it's immoral for us to eat them, especially when we are biologically inclined to do so?

Is killing plants immoral too?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

However when it comes to meat eating, there's a definite oversupply of people who seem to feel enormously clever for butting into the thread and saying "Hurr hurr, I like meat, I'm eating meat right now!". I'm not sure why they think is is on topic, or demonstrates anything positive about them as human beings, but they sure do flock to these threads to make their statement.

I'm not trying to demonstrate anything, Kevin. I'm only pointing out how ridiculous I find the discussion that there's anything "moral" to consider when it comes to eating an animal.

And quite frankly, if you can't take the occasional humorous post, you're revealing more about yourself than anything else.

I'm not attempting to insult the people who post "I eat meat and I think it's okay for reasons X, Y and Z". Usually reasons X, Y and Z don't stand up to any scrutiny at all, but at least those people are trying to engage in a discussion. I'm wondering about the psychology of people who feel compelled to make posts which express nothing but their own claimed lack of interest in discussion.

If you check my posting history in this thread (which I invite you to do), you will see that I have already done my share of discussing the issue in a serious manner earlier in the thread. So I feel more than free to post the occasional humorous post. However, I'm not implying that I need an excuse to do that anyway, no more than I need an excuse to eat an animal.

And by the way, I already ate the chicken and it was delicious.

Is it cognitive dissonance? Do they realise there is a genuine moral problem which goes to the heart of their everyday activities, and try to pass it off as a joke?

In my opinion there is no moral problem. That's your personal opinion. Morality is a construction of mankind. Trying to project that construction on nature as if it was inherent to it, is false and selfish.

There is nothing moral, nor immoral, nor amoral about killing an animal. Nature doesn't have an inherent moral code in it.

 

[Dragoonster]

But there isn't any moral problem there. If you actually grew up in farm country you would understand the attitude that we provide them with food, and they provide us food in return. We have no responsibility to care for these animals inherently, and many of them would die in the wild long before they do when we care for them.

We give them vaccinations to prevent disease, we make sure that they are always fed, we do many things to care for their needs. Why do you think that it's immoral for us to eat them, especially when we are biologically inclined to do so?

Is killing plants immoral too?

Can I make a human farm, care for their needs and vaccinate them, then slaughter and eat them? No moral problem there, since they're also meat and I need to eat meat?

 

[Mirrorglass]

Can I make a human farm, care for their needs and vaccinate them, then slaughter and eat them? No moral problem there, since they're also meat and I need to eat meat?

If your moral states that is right, then then there's no way to convince you otherwise. I'd warn against it, though; humans tend to take badly on being farmed.

 

[Manopolus]

Can I make a human farm, care for their needs and vaccinate them, then slaughter and eat them? No moral problem there, since they're also meat and I need to eat meat?

Human meat isn't particularly edible, as I understand it (though I don't know this from experience).

But seriously... a human doing that would not be the same ethics as a cow doing that. Again, if the situation were reversed and bovines were intelligent and ate meat, while humans did neither... can we say that they wouldn't do the same? I never noticed that cows were particularly interested in HUMAN life, after all.

(added) The basis for vegetarianism morality seems to be to say that humans and other animals are not different in any significant way. We ARE different, actually... so much so that we really have very little in our lives that cows can relate to, although we can (perhaps unfortunately) project OUR feelings, etc. into such creatures.

I assure you that cow does not care one way or another whether you live or die unless it affects its next meal. The same cannot be generally said of most humans.

 

[Dragoonster]

Human meat isn't particularly edible, as I understand it (though I don't know this from experience).

But seriously... a human doing that would not be the same ethics as a cow doing that. Again, if the situation were reversed and bovines were intelligent and ate meat, while humans did neither... can we say that they wouldn't do the same? I never noticed that cows were particularly interested in HUMAN life, after all.

(added) The basis for vegetarianism morality seems to be to say that humans and other animals are not different in any significant way. We ARE different, actually... so much so that we really have very little in our lives that cows can relate to, although we can (perhaps unfortunately) project OUR feelings, etc. into such creatures.

I assure you that cow does not care one way or another whether you live or die unless it affects its next meal. The same cannot be generally said of most humans.

I'm not a vegetarian but I'd say the basis is that we share at least one significant thing (whatever it is the vegetarian assigns a moral right to I guess), not that we aren't different in any significant way. Humans are more intelligent, obviously far more introspective with language, etc. But there could be a right given at "conscious desire to avoid pain, with recognition that the animal exists as an entity and could escape pain" or something, that could also encompass less-developed creatures.

The classic Golden Rule thing though I agree is not applicable.

I think my and Kevin's desire is to see a deeper explanation of why it's okay (or what it is that gives humans rights, that animals lack), more than simply because they taste good or because homo sapiens is carnivorous. This is in the philosophy forum after all, not science or humor. It's been a good discussion so far for the most part, but some of the arguments aren't very philosophical, and some seem akin to taunting.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I'm not a vegetarian but I'd say the basis is that we share at least one significant thing (whatever it is the vegetarian assigns a moral right to I guess), not that we aren't different in any significant way. Humans are more intelligent, obviously far more introspective with language, etc. But there could be a right given at "conscious desire to avoid pain, with recognition that the animal exists as an entity and could escape pain" or something, that could also encompass less-developed creatures.

You could give that right, of course. But why would you want to? A moral principle needs to be based on something. This idea of "concious desire to avoid pain etc." seems completely arbitrary to me. Most people don't agree with it, at least.

I think my and Kevin's desire is to see a deeper explanation of why it's okay (or what it is that gives humans rights, that animals lack), more than simply because they taste good or because homo sapiens is carnivorous. This is in the philosophy forum after all, not science or humor. It's been a good discussion so far for the most part, but some of the arguments aren't very philosophical, and some seem akin to taunting.

You've been given the explanation "they are lower lifeforms, and don't have the brains to understand the situation". For most people, there is no deeper reason than that. It's kind of unfair to say a person isn't philosophical enough if his reasons aren't deep enough for you.

Also, I agree with the people who say you don't need an excuse for eating animals. Do you need an excuse for scratching your head? For watching TV? For breathing? An "excuse" is something you need to do something that's wrong. You are the one making the claim eating animals is wrong. Others only need to make excuses after you've convinced them your view is right.

 

[Manopolus]

I think my and Kevin's desire is to see a deeper explanation of why it's okay (or what it is that gives humans rights, that animals lack), more than simply because they taste good or because homo sapiens is carnivorous. This is in the philosophy forum after all, not science or humor. It's been a good discussion so far for the most part, but some of the arguments aren't very philosophical, and some seem akin to taunting.

I suppose the taunting in my case comes from the fact that I find the more extreme version of animal rights activism to be particularly ridiculous. I've never met anyone that has actually been around farm animals much that actually thought that way. The vegetarians I have met are familiar with nothing other than pets, and believed that meat came from the supermarket before suddenly becoming aware of its source and therefore having some kind of moral crises.

I give farm animals about the same consideration in the matter that you would cockroaches. Are you against exterminating roaches, as well? Hell, you don't even EAT them... you kill them because of an irrational hate, no? Are there significant differences that actually support the vegetarian attitude between the two practices? And DON'T tell me that you believe in extraditing cockroaches out of your house while they are alive. That's ridiculous. Cockroaches do not live in the wild much... they prefer people's houses and restaurants, where they can find easy food. If you move them while alive, you are just making them someone else's problem.

 

[Pup]

BTW: Unlike pets, animals grown for food are not particularly sociable relative to humans... it's actually rather hard to have a social relationship with a cow or a chicken like some do with a dog. They seem to make no particular attachments, and their interest in us is basically the same as our interest in them: that is, we provide them with food (grain, generally).

In some cases, I think that's more due to the choice of the human, rather than the animal. Pot bellied pigs and oxen come to mind. Not many people today train and work with oxen, but the relationship is about the same as horses to humans. On another forum I'm on, a fellow's ox died suddenly in an accident, and it was as big a deal for him and the people who knew him or the ox, as if a favorite pet had died, despite the fact they all ate beef. And then there are cultures where dogs are considered food animals too, so it can work the other way.

 

[Manopolus]

In some cases, I think that's more due to the choice of the human, rather than the animal. Pot bellied pigs and oxen come to mind. Not many people today train and work with oxen, but the relationship is about the same as horses to humans. On another forum I'm on, a fellow's ox died suddenly in an accident, and it was as big a deal for him and the people who knew him or the ox, as if a favorite pet had died, despite the fact they all ate beef. And then there are cultures where dogs are considered food animals too, so it can work the other way.

Pot bellied pigs are not food animals, they are and always have been pets as far as I know. They are a bit more socially inclined than your garden variety hogs we raise for food here in the USA.

In any case, yes, humans can make it a big deal when their favorite animal has died. I have rarely heard of an animal (other than a few dog stories) that cared one way or another when a human died. I've also heard stories of old ladies dying and being eaten by their hungry cats before anyone discovered the body.

 

[Dragoonster]

You could give that right, of course. But why would you want to? A moral principle needs to be based on something. This idea of "concious desire to avoid pain etc." seems completely arbitrary to me. Most people don't agree with it, at least.

It was a quick example of what a basis might be. But I'd say most people do agree with that when considering unacceptable actions towards other humans. Laws against torture, cruel and unusual punishment, seemingly predicated on infliction of pain plus empathy. Or euthanasia to cause death to avoid pain. If it's arbitrary to apply it to animals (and it is) it's also arbitrary to apply it to humans.

You've been given the explanation "they are lower lifeforms, and don't have the brains to understand the situation". For most people, there is no deeper reason than that. It's kind of unfair to say a person isn't philosophical enough if his reasons aren't deep enough for you.

True for most of the arguments here. I don't think "because it tastes good" by itself is philosophically defensible, unless the person stating it is fine with cannibalism.

Also, I agree with the people who say you don't need an excuse for eating animals. Do you need an excuse for scratching your head? For watching TV? For breathing? An "excuse" is something you need to do something that's wrong. You are the one making the claim eating animals is wrong. Others only need to make excuses after you've convinced them your view is right.

Excuse is a bad word. Can't remember if I've used it but I prefer "explanation". If someone started a thread about explanations for why it's acceptable to watch TV, I'd consider the answer in at least a bit of depth. "because it's entertaining" is a fine general answer, but if the OP is looking for a moral answer it might be "because the manufacture of the TV doesn't cause harm to anyone" or "because I'm an egoist more than a utilitarian, so watching TV instead of helping mankind is acceptable".

But it's obvious that many if not most humans care about animals and believe they should be given at least some moral consideration. There aren't head-scratching scalp rights groups that I'm aware of. I'd hope people would approach this somewhat seriously considering this. Animal rights advocacy is a real phenomenon.

 

[Manopolus]

Let me put this another way:

It is a fact of nature that some animals, including humans, kill and eat other animals. True, we are a bit more systematic about it, but this has to do with one of our natural tools for survival -- intelligence.

Isn't it a bit arrogant to say that we are "too good" for nature? Is reality immoral? Admittedly, it is not fair, as is often proclaimed. But is it immoral?

 

[Dragoonster]

I suppose the taunting in my case comes from the fact that I find the more extreme version of animal rights activism to be particularly ridiculous. I've never met anyone that has actually been around farm animals much that actually thought that way. The vegetarians I have met are familiar with nothing other than pets, and believed that meat came from the supermarket before suddenly becoming aware of its source and therefore having some kind of moral crises.

Understandable. I wasn't referring to you as a taunter, or didn't see your posts as such. Was trying to find out where a human was different than an animal.

I give farm animals about the same consideration in the matter that you would cockroaches. Are you against exterminating roaches, as well? Hell, you don't even EAT them... you kill them because of an irrational hate, no? Are there significant differences that actually support the vegetarian attitude between the two practices? And DON'T tell me that you believe in extraditing cockroaches out of your house while they are alive. That's ridiculous. Cockroaches do not live in the wild much... they prefer people's houses and restaurants, where they can find easy food. If you move them while alive, you are just making them someone else's problem.

I leave them alone unless they're an infestation. As Mirrorglass says assigning moral rights is arbitrary, but insects are far below my particular arbitrariness. I would however try to explain why they are, why/where I chose the arbitrary line, and why it's acceptable to kill them with a poison bomb if I'm talking to someone who feels they should have rights. I think you've done this re: animals but some haven't and it's kind of annoying.

Perhaps a hyperbolic analogy, but I guess it's how a pro-lifer would feel if people were dropping in the thread with two sentence anecdotes about coat-hangering fetuses out of wombs, or barbequing the leftovers on a grill.

But I probably overreacted again and need to again chill out.

 

[Dragoonster]

Let me put this another way:

It is a fact of nature that some animals, including humans, kill and eat other animals. True, we are a bit more systematic about it, but this has to do with one of our natural tools for survival -- intelligence.

Isn't it a bit arrogant to say that we are "too good" for nature? Is reality immoral? Admittedly, it is not fair, as is often proclaimed. But is it immoral?

A lot of natural things we're inclined to do are considered immoral. Almost all towards other humans, but for an animal-rights person that's the same sort of reason why nature wouldn't by itself excuse killing/eating animals. The same intelligence that let's us efficiently kill other animals allows us to deeply think about the morality of it, just as it lets us weigh the morality of raping or assaulting other humans.

 

[Mirrorglass]

It was a quick example of what a basis might be. But I'd say most people do agree with that when considering unacceptable actions towards other humans. Laws against torture, cruel and unusual punishment, seemingly predicated on infliction of pain plus empathy. Or euthanasia to cause death to avoid pain. If it's arbitrary to apply it to animals (and it is) it's also arbitrary to apply it to humans.

There's actually a very good and sensible way to differentiate between them. If we started eating humans, the harms would easily outweigh the gains. There would be wars over it, and it would greatly weaken society and the human race, not to mention the immediate harms to the first cannibal.

On the other hand, eating meat is one of the main things that allowed humans to develop interest. It's a very good and economical way to produce food, and it's easier to maintain a healthy diet when meat is on the menu. Overall, eating meat has a great amount of benefits, when it's only drawbacks are some vague moral concerns most people don't share.

So I just need to start from the assumption "I care about humans more than cows" and it's easy to reach the perfectly logical conclusion that it's all right to eat cows and not all right to eat men.

True for most of the arguments here. I don't think "because it tastes good" by itself is philosophically defensible, unless the person stating it is fine with cannibalism.

If that's not a sound argument, then what kind of an argument do you present for eating, say, a carrot?

Excuse is a bad word. Can't remember if I've used it but I prefer "explanation". If someone started a thread about explanations for why it's acceptable to watch TV, I'd consider the answer in at least a bit of depth. "because it's entertaining" is a fine general answer, but if the OP is looking for a moral answer it might be "because the manufacture of the TV doesn't cause harm to anyone" or "because I'm an egoist more than a utilitarian, so watching TV instead of helping mankind is acceptable".

You may not have used the word, but "explanation" in this case means pretty much the same; that there needs to be some explanation beyond that I want to do it. That presupposes there is something wrong with the act as such.

Anyway, you have been given answers similar to the ones in your TV example: "we are omnivores and eating meat is both natural and beneficial to us" and "eating meat doesn't harm anyone". Not precisely with those wordings, but the idea has been presented several times. Yet you continue calling these answers "not deep enough".

But it's obvious that many if not most humans care about animals and believe they should be given at least some moral consideration. There aren't head-scratching scalp rights groups that I'm aware of. I'd hope people would approach this somewhat seriously considering this. Animal rights advocacy is a real phenomenon.

So is Scientology. Anyway, we have approached the question seriously (and occasionally in jest), analyzed the arguments, and concluded we don't believe animals have any rights, and thus eating meat is not a moral problem. I, and one of my favorite philosophers have given animals moral consideration and decided they are not moral subjects. Only humans are, and as such, hurting an animal is only morally wrong if one by doing so also harms a human.

The reason I think animal torture is immoral is not because I worry of the suffering of the animal; it's because I believe the act of torturing an animal causes damage to the torturer's mind, making him less human. I think some of the huge farms of today are, in essence, torturing animals, and are slowly killing empathy in humans. I do not condone such facilities. But I don't think there's anything wrong with hunting animals or butchering them efficiently. And certainly not in raising them in "humane" conditions, even for butcher.

So the problem isn't that we don't consider the moral issues - we just reached a conclusion you don't seem to agree with. You can present arguments for why you think we're wrong, if you like, but please don't claim our claims are somehow less deep or philosophical than yours.

 

[Dragoonster]

So the problem isn't that we don't consider the moral issues - we just reached a conclusion you don't seem to agree with. You can present arguments for why you think we're wrong, if you like, but please don't claim our claims are somehow less deep or philosophical than yours.

I'm not referring to your claims, which are well explained and reasoned. I was adding to Kevin's curiosity about why some people post nothing more than:

They taste nice.

Vegetables are so bland.

I don't kill 'em. They're already dead when I buy them.

I kill them I eat them

Some animals just need killin'.

Maybe it's implied that they see animals no more worthy of any moral consideration than rocks. But considering most humans balk at skinning cats alive, as we went through earlier, and considering animal-rights groups do exist and do put forth moral arguments for their stances, and everyone is aware of this, I find those types of comments (or "arguments") rather incomplete for a thread in religion/philosophy.

Sorry, guess I dipped into the true morality arguments. I just intended to add to Kevin's annoyance at quote like those.