• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What is your excuse for killing animals?

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.

I'm not so sure that rape or assault is particularly natural, but I see the point. Fighting for dominance is a particular instinct in the human species... you see that in drinking establishments all the time. Often, however, there is a mutual desire to fight... and I'm not so sure it IS immoral in that case (though I have always preferred not to participate in such things).

Also, if there wasn't a bit of an over-emphasis on sex for males combined with a contradictory and quite strong cultural bias against it for females, I really don't think rape would happen nearly as often as it does today. I could be wrong, but I rather doubt it. Conventional societal mores actually indicate that such a phenomenon will be present. Is this nature? Perhaps it may have a natural basis in a way. I have my doubts.
 
Why does eating meat keep being compared to rape? I've never had the urge to rape someone. It smacks of the fundie "If you don't believe in God why not go around murdering and raping people?" As if man's natural state is to kill and rape everything it sees. Yet what I see in man is an overwhelming majority of decent people who just want to live their lives, and an incredibly tiny minority of sociopaths and psychopaths who want to rape/murder/steal etc. I would say those psychotics do not represent "natural" man.

I do, however, have an urge to eat meat, as does my dog and my cat. In fact, as long as I can remember, the smell of (and even thought of) meat causes me to grind my teeth and salivate. What's my excuse? It's an empty question, I don't need one. I'm an omnivore.

And comparing "animal rights" to women's lib or civil rights is disgusting.

For anyone too busy to read the 8 or so pages, don't worry, intelligible points brought by PETArds - 0.
 
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.

Maybe you do need to start paying attention at what has been said in this thread regarding human's natural bias towards creatures that look more like us (Mammals and some types of birds) as opposed to other life forms (insects, plants, cancer tumors, bacteria)

Because no one here is making the claim that some creatures are more worthy of moral consideration than others (At least I am not)

The only common claim made here is: Morality is a construct of mankind, of human culture, not of nature. Morality is a set of rules we humans created to live in a societal way. We have bent them and re-shaped them all the time throughout the history of mankind (Suggested reference: The Shifting Moral Zeitgeist by Richard Dawkins)

As long as you continue viewing the issue through the narrow minded, tunnel-vision mentality that there is an inherent moral code in nature, we're not gonna get nowhere with this discussion. And I do mean nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Mirrorglass and I were discussing this a page ago. Why do you find the comparison disgusting?

It is disgusting because it trivializes the rights we grant human beings in an effort to elicit emotion and paint cows and chickens as "oppressed" in the same way blacks were in the slavery/Jim Crow era. Cows and chickens have been bred to be incredibly stupid and complacent. They are not human beings. Or would you agree with certain PETA members that a Tyson chicken farm is Worse Than Auschwitz™?
 
It is disgusting because it trivializes the rights we grant human beings

How so?

an effort to elicit emotion and paint cows and chickens as "oppressed" in the same way blacks were in the slavery/Jim Crow era.

Which makes a lot of sense as the people making the comparison for that reason believe that cows and chickens are "'oppressed' in the same way blacks were in the slavery/Jim Crow era", and that such "oppression" is morally wrong. No?

Cows and chickens have been bred to be incredibly stupid and complacent. They are not human beings. Or would you agree with certain PETA members that a Tyson chicken farm is Worse Than Auschwitz™?

No clue. Anyhow, I don't agree with PETA that subjecting a chicken to a chicken farm is comparable to subjecting a human to Auschwitz.
 
Last edited:
Human beings are uniquely intelligent and creative. We are also social creatures. For a more perfect society we seek equal opportunities for all mankind, protection from harm, rights to self-determination, etc. "Rights" is a meaningless term for non-human animals. I believe we should not cause unreasonable pain to animals, but farming and hunting I consider quite reasonable. Cows are not the "new black people."


Which makes a lot of sense as the people making the comparison for that reason believe that cows and chickens are "'oppressed' in the same way blacks were in the slavery/Jim Crow era", and that such "oppression" is morally wrong. No?
Then I and those people will never agree. Cows and chickens can not be oppressed in the same way humans can be. Cows and chickens do not have creativity or aspiration. They do not come close to the intellectual capacity of even below-average human beings.


No clue. Anyhow, I don't agree with PETA that subjecting a chicken to a chicken farm is comparable to subjecting a human to Auschwitz.
I apologize for insinuating you may have.
 
I apologize for insinuating you may have.

No problem. And to be clear, I'm not an animal rights supporter myself, I just wanted to know what you meant earlier.

Anyway, I agree with everything you said in this post.
 
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.

I already answered this, but I decided later that I should give a more complete answer, as I do have some experience in the matter.

When I was around 12, our family started raising Holstein steers for meat. Holsteins are basically milk cows, but the males (and some females, when they aren't needed to sustain or increase the size of the herd) are butchered for meat. They are separated from the parent within a few days after birth and given a synthetic milk formula. The milk from the mother is used by humans, of course.

Anyway, we feed these animals by hand and teach them to drink out of a bucket. While doing so, I actually did try to build some kind of a relationship with the creatures, specifically ones which I found to be "prettier" than others. I was not particularly familiar with cattle before this time... I had been around pigs and chickens a bit, but neither required the kind of attention that those young calves did.

The simple fact is, you can have feelings toward the animals, but I could find no indication whatsoever that such feelings are ever reciprocated in any way. Cattle don't like to be petted like a dog or a cat. They will tolerate you touching them, but do not crave it. The only attention they seem to desire is being fed. Nothing that I observed suggested that they had any other use for me outside of the food (milk, and grain later) that I provided them.

Also, observing them in the field when they were older (they are generally confined to a small pen to themselves until weaned) I got no impression whatsoever that they built any special relationships among their own kind. They seem to have only two categorizations for other creatures: fellow bovine, and not fellow bovine. A new cow presented to the herd was never treated any different than another that had been there all along. Humans for some reason were to be feared... unless they happened to be in the process of providing grain or hay, in which case they can be ignored while going after the food. This, even though we have been feeding them since birth... quite intimately at first.

While feeding the young calves one day, I heard a cat making noises from underneath a pallet. I made its noises back at it, and it eventually came out. I had never seen the cat before, although I had heard my mother mention that a stray cat had shown up that seemed somewhat feral. Anyway, even though no one else could even get close to this cat without having it run off, it eventually walked right up to me, and I petted it, etc. In the course of a few minutes, I built a relationship with that cat that cannot be formed with livestock.

This is what I mean when I say that livestock and pets are quite different.
 
Last edited:
Dinner. We are having smoked lamb tomorrow.

Care to drop by?

DR


Our butcher didn't have lamb ribs which was my planned meal. So we had to substitute pork loin instead. It was good, but I was really looking forward to cooking lamb other than chops for the first time. :mad:
 
Considering that the number of vegetarians/vegans are increasing around the world, things such as fur production is illegal in some Europe counties. And the Great Apes have rights in Spain, I’d say animal rights are getting stronger with time. That is the tendency of civilization, more rights, not less
The number of vegetarians/vegans in the world is determined by global poverty impeding people's access to animal protein. Spain's "animal rights" are a joke, you probably have never watched a "corrida", a bullfight, in Spain. Your observation of a tendency is plain and simple wrong.

Giving rights to all humans, because they are human is in my opinion gibberish
Thank god, your opinion doesn't matter whatsoever.
 
(first of all I don’t mean to be flaming, just discuss nicely)

I guess most people here believe in the golden rule… meaning that they generally will avoid doing to others what they don’t want others doing to them.

I also guess most people here believe in evolution… meaning they believe that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.

So I’m curious to know what you critical thinkers tell yourselves so you can conciliate the Golden Rule and the evolutionary perspective and still justify an action that will directly harm something whose only fault is in context being weaker than you?

Dang I could really go for a double bacon cheeseburger with special sauce like a mofo!
 
I don't see where the argument can go. Are we a part of nature or not? If not, if we are the image of god or the rulers of eden or whatever, then we are indeed something special, and we, or the god who likes the aroma when his people sacrifice goats, make the rules. The golden rule, or any other, is ours to write and ours to interpret. We need not explain it to the goats any more than we need apply it.

If we are not special, but just another critter on the food chain, then "frogs eat butterflies, snakes eat frogs, hogs eat snakes and men eat hogs."
 
I don't see where the argument can go. Are we a part of nature or not? If not, if we are the image of god or the rulers of eden or whatever, then we are indeed something special, and we, or the god who likes the aroma when his people sacrifice goats, make the rules. The golden rule, or any other, is ours to write and ours to interpret. We need not explain it to the goats any more than we need apply it.

If we are not special, but just another critter on the food chain, then "frogs eat butterflies, snakes eat frogs, hogs eat snakes and men eat hogs."

Amusingly this is exactly the argument used by some of the less-bright theists you run in to.

"If there is no God, why be moral at all?".
 
Amusingly this is exactly the argument used by some of the less-bright theists you run in to.

"If there is no God, why be moral at all?".
Except that that's not my argument. I am suggesting that the naturalistic argument Brocolis raises
....that there is nothing really special about the human race except that through non-random survival of randomly varying replicators we ended up developing skills that allowed us to become the dominant species in our ecosystem.
amounts to that.
 
Amusingly this is exactly the argument used by some of the less-bright theists you run in to.

"If there is no God, why be moral at all?".

That is compounded by ignorance of the mechanisms of morality. If you presume certain reasons for moral behaviours then the conclusion is perfectly reasonable.
 
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.

Do you think animals are worthy of any moral consideration at all? Where do you stand on animal cruelty laws, or ethics committees for, say, primate research? Should we condemn people who dogfight, or torture their pets? Is there anything wrong with bestiality? Or making bears dance? I fail to see how you can even have discussions on any of these issues without accepting there are moral considerations to be taken into account when thinking about how human beings ought to treat animals, even if your answers are "Bear baiting is fine". That's still a decision that must necessarily be reached on moral grounds; it's an inherently moral issue.

It's not "ridiculous" to point out meat eating is at the very least a question with a significant moral component, no matter what side of the argument you end up on. To deny there's even a moral question in dietary choice just looks like wilful ignorance to me.

For some reason, diet is a huge blindspot. It's not that it is "ridiculous" to see diet as a moral question. It's ridiculous that so many do not.
 
Last edited:
Except that that's not my argument. I am suggesting that the naturalistic argument Brocolis raises amounts to that.

I'm suggesting that you are wrong and that you are putting forward a false dichotomy.

There are options other than "We are above nature and can thus do whatever the hell we like" and "We are part of nature and can thus do whatever the hell we like".
 
Do you think animals are worthy of any moral consideration at all? Where do you stand on animal cruelty laws, or ethics committees for, say, primate research? Should we condemn people who dogfight, or torture their pets? Is there anything wrong with bestiality? Or making bears dance? I fail to see how you can even have discussions on any of these issues without accepting there are moral considerations to be taken into account when thinking about how human beings ought to treat animals, even if your answers are "Bear baiting is fine". That's still a decision that must necessarily be reached on moral grounds; it's an inherently moral issue.

It's not "ridiculous" to point out meat eating is at the very least a question with a significant moral component, no matter what side of the argument you end up on. To deny there's even a moral question in dietary choice just looks like wilful ignorance to me.

For some reason, diet is a huge blindspot. It's not that it is "ridiculous" to see diet as a moral question. It's ridiculous that so many do not.

Go back and read my entire post instead of limiting yourself to quoting one piece and then making irrelevant questions that are nothing but a strawman argument type of response from your part.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom