What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Herzblut]

Try as you might to diminish those interests, they're still present.

I think the regular term is "instinct". Animal behaviour is totally driven by instincts. For me, "interest" implies some kind of concept of a self which animals totally lack. An animal has no "interest" to survive, because it doesn't have any idea about itself and its death, instead it's driven by a totally irrefutable survival instinct. Animals have no freedom to commit suicide.

We can say, "well, the reason humans enjoy *********** is because its evolution's way of inducing us to have children." Yeah, so?

Humans are free to not enjoy a certain act which they are driven towards. An animal hasn't got that freedom.

We knowingly kill innocent humans en masse with the vague promise that it will prevent future deaths. More to the point, we deny fully developed (but incapacitated) humans their life support.

What? Who "we" is killing innocent humans en masse, please?

It generally makes sense to have laws prohibiting this behavior (even on utilitarian grounds), but as discussed above circumstances and morality may dictate victimizing innocents/law-breaking.

Not at all.

 

[Cain]

S
Since I am not presenting Mr Generic Consumer's arguments it is your strawman.

You've lost the context, but I guess that's a small matter after losing the argument.

You agree that eating animals isn't wrong; a generic observation on human rational frailty doesn't change this.

You're going backwards, which I thought may have been impossible. I agree there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the act of eating meat. The circumstances matter.

With your razor sharp intellect and flawless reading comprehension skills - which show up how poor mine are with each finely crafted lexeme - you must have noticed that I was referring to all people so I'm going to presume you didn't write that and I'm hallucinating that statement.

Only seeking "is that your final answer" verification. I am careful to try to never to assume malice instead of ignorance. In your case, I'm doubly cautious. I now refer you to my first post in this thread.

-------------------------
Herzblut:

I think the regular term is "instinct". Animal behaviour is totally driven by instincts. For me, "interest" implies some kind of concept of a self which animals totally lack. An animal has no "interest" to survive, because it doesn't have any idea about itself and its death, instead it's driven by a totally irrefutable survival instinct. Animals have no freedom to commit suicide.

Humans are free to not enjoy a certain act which they are driven towards. An animal hasn't got that freedom.

You're losing track of your arguments. Animals have the capacity to suffer independent of human existence, human concepts. The central dispute involves the moral relevance of this suffering. Your position appears to lead you in absurd territory: an infant's suffering is insignificant because her actions are based on instinct.

What? Who "we" is killing innocent humans en masse, please?

The human race.

 

[Cain]

On Vegan Arrogance...

You will have to search hard to find anyone more arrogant than vegans. Just try listening to them. TRY. They're always like, "hey, I think it's wrong to eat animals blather blather blather." I resent these condescending jerks asking me to justify killing tard-cattle... but here's my humble answer: meat tastes delicious.

Humans are the dominant species on this planet, a position we earned. Never mind the fact homeless people are STARVING! Domesticated animals are lucky enough to have shelter and more than enough food. Do they need to worry about skin cancer? NO!

Yet the glassy-eyed, protein deficient freaks are always urging real people not to "live at the expense of others." Why does it feel like the only reason they keep us around is to feed their starving egos? Animals eat, defecate and screw. Their lives are worthless and I don't need some self-appointed do-gooder sitting in judgment, telling me otherwise. The arrogance!

 

[Herzblut]

Some people come to veganism via environmental concerns, specifically how inefficient it is to produce meat (~12+ pounds of grain to generate a single pound of beef, unconscionable waste of water, cow farts, pig ****, health-care costs, land use).

I'd never heard this before! Thanks for your amazing sharpness!

(That was sarcasm BTW, but we can't move onto economics before you get past your moral superiority complex).

I'm certain that Cain has already overcome this complex, so let's move on to this interesting topic, please!

I never understood this economical argument at all, since beef is readily consumable - even raw - while a heap of crop is totally indigestible. A huge amount of energy is required to convert, say, wheat into meal and finally into something like bread. The industrial agriculture hides these enormous efforts from the lucky western consumer which has probably never seen a raw rice grain. And I am skeptical that cultivating rice requires less water than breeding livestock.

 

[Herzblut]

You're losing track of your arguments. Animals have the capacity to suffer independent of human existence, human concepts. The central dispute involves the moral relevance of this suffering.

Well, I see a biological relevance of suffering. If Wolf suffers from hunger, it is driven to hunt prey. The Wolf's suffering is essential for its survival, to not starve. Same is true for any wild animal on this planet. If the Wolf breaks a leg, it will not only suffer from that pain but miserably die from starvation. The only relief from suffering is Wolf's death. I am not aware that livestock suffers from those kinds of pain.

And nobody actually knows how it feels to be a wolf, cow or sheap with a broken leg, because animals can't tell you. Assuming that it is similar to what human beings feel is a wild speculation.

Finally, a moral codex that seeks to minimize "suffering" is weird and inapplicable, unless you blow up the whole planet which elegantly reduces any further creatures' suffering to zero.

Your position appears to lead you in absurd territory: an infant's suffering is insignificant because her actions are based on instinct.

"Significance" is another abstract human concept, isn't it? Nothing has any significance whatsoever, unless declared so by us. And human beings are infinitely valuable simply by being human, according to my ethical standpoint.

 

[Manopolus]

You're losing track of your arguments. Animals have the capacity to suffer independent of human existence, human concepts. The central dispute involves the moral relevance of this suffering. Your position appears to lead you in absurd territory: an infant's suffering is insignificant because her actions are based on instinct.

Not directed at me, but to this my answer is very simple, direct, and blunt.

If suffering is inherently wrong in all cases, we do an injustice to ourselves every time we lift weights or perform a job which is physically difficult. The premise that suffering is inherently wrong is inherently wrong... and a gross generalization which is not warranted.

Neither is causing the suffering of another creature inherently wrong. It depends on the circumstance and the intent. Self defense would be one circumstance in which violence is justified... even against other humans. To eat that which our bodies are designed to process seems to me to be a fair intent, as well. Certainly, suffering should be minimized to the extent that is possible in achieving the desired result... but the need itself and the pursuit of it is certainly justified. There are some things I will accept as absolutes, but this I will not. Back to self defense: Allowing someone to rape or kill you when it is possible to physically prevent it by violence enables it to continue against others. Standing there and watching someone else do such to another, out of an aversion to violently preventing it is also morally reprehensable... given that you are capable of preventing it. The question as applied to the O.P. is only a question of where to draw the line... absolutism cannot ethically be applied. Please specify and justify the place in which YOU draw the line, that I might reply to it.

Please note that if you apply my own analogy here to giving animals rights equal to humans, then your moral stance would require you to defend them violently, as well... if you agree with my assertion of its legitimacy in defense.

(added) err... I misread Cain's intent and actually extended his remarks (a mistake of context, due to scanning instead of reading). I suppose that makes my post directed at Cyborg, instead of Cain. I'm still a bit cofused as to the participants, as I've been away a while.

 

[Herzblut]

If suffering is inherently wrong in all cases, we do an injustice to ourselves every time we lift weights or perform a job which is physically difficult. The premise that suffering is inherently wrong is inherently wrong... and a gross generalization which is not warrented.

Yeah, very good! I think now, that suffering is absolutely crucial for the survival of all wild animals. It's the universal driver to enforce a certain behaviour for the animal while it's trying to get relief from its pain, may it be hunger, thirst, fatigue or hominess.

 

[Cain]

Well, I see a biological relevance of suffering.

Sure. Do you also see the biological relevance of rape, murder, genocide? Ah-ah- ah -- before you say anything, I realize those are abstract concepts or something.

And nobody actually knows how it feels to be a wolf, cow or sheap with a broken leg, because animals can't tell you. Assuming that it is similar to what human beings feel is a wild speculation.

I know -- wild speculation! Look at all these "scientists" who pointlessly experiment on animals. How do I even know other humans experience pain when I hit them? What if it's the good kind of pain? But those presumptuous vegans will not hesitate to speak up for others.

Finally, a moral codex that seeks to minimize "suffering" is weird and inapplicable, unless you blow up the whole planet which elegantly reduces any further creatures' suffering to zero.

If only the carbon-based organisms on this planet were capable of any other counterbalancing experiences...

Manopolus

If suffering is inherently wrong in all cases, we do an injustice to ourselves every time we lift weights or perform a job which is physically difficult. The premise that suffering is inherently wrong is inherently wrong... and a gross generalization which is not warranted.

I'm not sure what of this you're withdrawing -- at least, as it applies to me. I should say that I am not opposed to vaccinations: inoculation outweighs the momentary ouchie. Even for kids who cry like little bitches (OK, you were right mom... but I'd still do Jenny McCarthy from fifteen years ago).

 

[cyborg]

Words.

I see you're just not bothering responding to what I'm saying so neither will I.

Feel free to make some random comment about cruelty, rationality, humanity or animality at this point, I need to fill my bingo card.

 

[cyborg]

I never understood this economical argument at all, since beef is readily consumable - even raw - while a heap of crop is totally indigestible.

Well indeed, I can't get anything out of eating grass but a ruminant can. The argument that cows are destroying the environment is not exactly a pro-animal, pro-animal-rights, pro-cow argument as it says we should selfishly look to preserve the environment convenient for humans by making such biologically inconvenient entities extinct. Although presumably that's all just fine and dandy as long as we allow all the animals to die from old age and not from anything as vulgar as slaughter for meat.

 

[Herzblut]

I know -- wild speculation!

Not for you - of course. You can tell when your hamster has a headache.

How do I even know other humans experience pain when I hit them?

You know how it feels if you got hit, don't you? And you could also ask the others, like you ask your hamster today. Give it a try - it works!

 

[Cain]

Not for you - of course. You can tell when your hamster has a headache.

Truth. This is why I'm never surprised when someone admits to having a headache (this includes fictional characters in books and films).

You know how it feels if you got hit, don't you?

Well, I'm not sure if that's a good idea -- I'm quite manly.

And you could also ask the others, like you ask your hamster today. Give it a try - it works!

Yes, I suppose I could ask. If a dog whimpers, howls, cowers, pisses himself after getting hit multiple times, how can we know for sure he's suffering? We can't! With a human you just ask, then get an answer. It's not as though humans lie. What other possible means of communication exist -- we gonna read body language?? *air jerk*

------------------------------

Cyborg:

I see you're just not bothering responding to what I'm saying so neither will I.

Cute. Now you're pretending like you were the one who said something meaningful. Well geez, go all out, have your mom make a fake award.

 

[Herzblut]

Yes, I suppose I could ask. If a dog whimpers, howls, cowers, pisses himself after getting hit multiple times, how can we know for sure he's suffering? We can't! With a human you just ask, then get an answer. It's not as though humans lie. What other possible means of communication exist -- we gonna read body language?? *air jerk*

You make up a purely analytical proposition, you simply define the phrase "suffering animal" by certain behavioural observations. This doesn't add any information at all because you still don't know how an animal suffers, compared to a human.

You anthropomorphise animals by talking about their "interests" and "preferences" and "pains", as if human and animal minds were the same, which is clearly not the case.

You also proclaim that you can reliably read an animal's mental state by observing its behaviour, which is an unjustifiable claim.

 

[Manopolus]

Manopolus


I'm not sure what of this you're withdrawing -- at least, as it applies to me. I should say that I am not opposed to vaccinations: inoculation outweighs the momentary ouchie. Even for kids who cry like little bitches (OK, you were right mom... but I'd still do Jenny McCarthy from fifteen years ago).

None of it.

I call Poe... as I am not sure which of your remarks are sarcastic and which are not at this point (after reading a number of your completely ridiculous posts). I have no understanding of your position whatsoever. All I see is mindless heckling. If you actually have a serious position in this issue, please inform me of it. If you are merely here to make fun of what anyone else here says, let me know that too, so I can dismiss you as a mindless troll and move on.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why is it nonsensical? The question you jut posed also has a very obvious answer. You mean you can't provide an answer for neither of them? Really?

I can provide my own answers, of course. That goes without saying. However you have missed the point: I don't think you can provide answers which can justifiably be described as moral which are consistent with your previous statements, thus my questions for you. You're welcome to try.

What does this tell you about morality? Where do you think it has its origins? Who speaks for morality? Who makes these rules?

If we unpack this old chestnut, it amounts to this:

"Different cultures have different ideas about what is moral. Therefore morality is culturally relative, no moral system is better than any other, and
morality is doing what your culture tells you to do".

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

What does this finding tell you about the "morality" of nature?

The Socratic method is a useful tool, but only if the teacher has the slightest goddamn clue about philosophy, and can keep track of an argument.

We are part of nature. We have moral ideas.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Naturalistic fallacy? No, I'm saying I will eat meat because I need it to survive. I have low iron levels, amongst other things.

It's 2010, you have other options for getting iron.

Regardless, "I need to do X to survive" and "I can morally do X because it is natural" are two different arguments.

I will not suffer by trying to eliminate red meat from my diet because someone objects to this diet we evolved to survive on.

So you're not falling into the naturalistic fallacy, but three sentences later you've gone straight back to it?

I have kids to feed, and they will also not suffer a vegan diet to end up like some children whose parents are "morally" misguided. Nutrient deficiency in a child especially will cause implications I find more immoral than your objection to meat eating.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20062325,00.html

This makes as much sense as saying "I have kids to feed, so I'm going to murder some people and take their stuff. I have no other option, unless you count getting a job or something, and that would be too hard".

It's 2010, you can raise healthy kids on a meat-free diet with a little effort. If that's your best justification for eating meat you don't have much of a justification.

 

[154]

Tonight, it was pepperoni and sausage.

 

[cyborg]

Cute. Now you're pretending like you were the one who said something meaningful.

No, I'm not pretending I said anything meaningful at all. There's just no point in attempting to converse with someone who is not responding to the content of the post.

Why am I not a vegan? I have no moral problems with the animal food sources I use therefore I must be a vegan according to what you have been saying.

Everything else you are banging on about it irrelevant but you sure prefer it to answering simple and direct questions.

 

[cyborg]

Words.

What is it specifically and only with regards to the cessation of animal life that is wrong when instigated by anthropic forces?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Words.

When you want to engage in serious discussion, feel free to do so.