What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Belz...]

Most animals we eat (with the exception of other humans, in cases of cannibalism) have absolutely no sense whatsoever of the difference between right and wrong, as we do.

Not only that, but they don't have dreams and aspirations, either.

Most of the animals we farm live far better than they would in the wild. Yet you never hear that from animal lovers.

 

[Belz...]

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

That's a part of the vegan argument I don't get.

Because we FEEL bad for SOME of the animals we slaughter, we should skip meat entirely (which is a non sequitur; we should improve conditions in slaughterhouses, instead). But then, this causes certain deficiencies. The solution ? Pills.

Sure thing. No, I think I'll keep getting my essential nutrients the old fashion way, thank you very much.

And to the OP, really, I have no need for justification.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Are you going to go back to claiming that society determines morality, even after we've agreed that we can come up with moral beliefs before we consult society at large?

I can't go back to a position I have always held. We agreed that there are no great stone tablets carved with the perfect unchanging morals to consult. Then you did some mental gymnastics to convince yourself that I agreed with everything else you said. The fact that you did it so easily indicates that you can't help doing it.

Individuals have values and opinions. Society has morals. They do not always agree and they are not unchanging. You and Kevin_Lowe think there is some perfect moral world out there that will be some kind of Utopia if only everyone would think like you. If everyone would only adopt the same values and opinions then everyone and every action would be moral and right. Talk about automata! You point to every value and opinion different than your own and and cry "Nihilist!" or "Immoral!" You cannot accept that morals can change as the social environment changes. You are as bad as evolution deniers. The evidence is all around you, but you want there to be some unchanging moral code so much that you are willing dismiss it as immorality (evil?). This allows you to inflate your opinion of yourselves because you are so much better than that. You can sit there eating your soyburger and think that if you want, but that's just your opinion and we all know what it's worth.

 

[Manopolus]

Because we FEEL bad for SOME of the animals we slaughter, we should skip meat entirely (which is a non sequitur; we should improve conditions in slaughterhouses, instead). But then, this causes certain deficiencies. The solution ? Pills.

I've worked in a slaughterhouse or two... please tell me what "conditions" need to be improved. I think what bothers most people about them is the blood and guts (which are only there AFTER you kill something). Cattle are generally knocked out cold with a "knocker" (basically a blow to the head that immediately makes them unconscious if not dead) after which they are strung upside down and their throats are slit. What's inhumane about it? There is very little pain. It's all fairly instantaneous. I'd have a hard time trying to object to the conditions without objecting to the death in general (which I don't).

 

[cyborg]

Cyborg, we had the opener, the feature, and now you're headliner. Good job, buddy.

Yes, whatever child.

I don't know if I expect you to feel guilty, nor am I concerned about feelings. Let's talk about right and wrong.

Okay, then I'll rephrase: why should I think it's wrong to get more involved in the death of the seal?

You were earlier talking about the sort of micro-transactions that are virtually impossible for an individual to measure and calculate.

Yes, but I'm not expecting every individual to do these calculations, but I would at least expect to see the principles of these calculations outlined so that they can be calculated by a group and that information published for wider consumption. You know, like how it works with for other consumer information. Do such repositories of vegan analysis exist? Presumably not otherwise you would have pointed me towards it rather than imply it's too inconvenient to calculate the information and that's why it doesn't exist.

But this objection, as I said earlier, would not apply exclusively to veganism. *yawn*

Is it past your bedtime?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's a part of the vegan argument I don't get.

Because we FEEL bad for SOME of the animals we slaughter, we should skip meat entirely (which is a non sequitur; we should improve conditions in slaughterhouses, instead). But then, this causes certain deficiencies. The solution ? Pills.

Sure thing. No, I think I'll keep getting my essential nutrients the old fashion way, thank you very much.

Was that supposed to be an intelligent argument?

You and Kevin_Lowe think there is some perfect moral world out there that will be some kind of Utopia if only everyone would think like you. If everyone would only adopt the same values and opinions then everyone and every action would be moral and right. Talk about automata!

You'd think after getting just about everything else completely wrong you'd spot the trend and stop trying to put words in our mouths.

Mind you, the world would be a better place if everyone had the same values I did. That's tautologically true. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't hold those values.

You point to every value and opinion different than your own and and cry "Nihilist!" or "Immoral!"

No, just the nihilist opinions. Believe it or not, Cain and I are actually capable of discerning relatively subtle differences between moral value judgments and labelling them appropriately, because we actually know something about the topic.

You cannot accept that morals can change as the social environment changes. You are as bad as evolution deniers.

Whereas you obviously can't read, because I've been beating Ron over the head for some time now with the fact that it is in no way news to any of us that popular moral views have changed over time and differed in different places.

That fact is not in dispute.

You and Ron conclude from this, because you aren't very clear thinkers, that this proves that no moral judgments are better than any others. That conclusion does not follow from the agreed-upon historical fact that popular moral views have changed over time.

I don't know why I bother repeating this though: You didn't grasp it the first few times who why should I think you are capable of doing so this time?

The evidence is all around you, but you want there to be some unchanging moral code so much that you are willing dismiss it as immorality (evil?). This allows you to inflate your opinion of yourselves because you are so much better than that. You can sit there eating your soyburger and think that if you want, but that's just your opinion and we all know what it's worth.

At least if I did I'd have an internally consistent philosophical view.

As opposed to being a pseudo-nihilist postmodernist of convenience while I eat my hamburger, and then going off to express moral value judgments about issues like rape, genocide, slavery, terrorism, the rule of law, child molestation, official corruption, animal cruelty, scientific fraud, psychics ripping people off and the wide variety of important moral issues that don't concern your diet. Those are all fair game for moral judgments, and nobody bats an eyelid when people make moral judgments on these boards about them.

I can go to this or other subforums and bash psychics as immoral, or terrorists as immoral, or crooked politicians as immoral, or corrupt cops as immoral, or murderers as immoral and nobody will bat an eyelid. The pseudo-nihilists of convenience all have better things to do than pop in to those threads to say "I'm ripping people off by pretending to be psychic right now, ha ha!". But say that eating meat is morally questionable and suddenly it's wall to wall postmodernist nihilism - but just for one thread, just on that one topic.

Don't you think that's interesting? That you or Ron_Tomkins have never gotten around to emailing Randi to say "I think it's disgusting and arrogant and dishonest the way you think you are better than Uri Geller. Your smug, sanctimonious moralising has no place in this uncaring universe where animals kill each other every day"? What's the difference, if all moral claims are meaningless? So why hasn't Ron_Tomkins written that email? Why haven't you?

I think it's because pseudo-nihilism is just your pseudo-philosophical defence mechanism to fend off troublesome thoughts about whether it's actually consistent with the rest of your moral views and with the rest of how you live your lives to kill animals for the taste of them.

 

[cyborg]

But say that eating meat is morally questionable and suddenly it's wall to wall postmodernist nihilism

The argument is that the production of meat is morally questionable - not the eating of it.

Could you try to keep consistent on what it is that is morally questionable? Thanks.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It seems to be primarily about humane treatment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Slaughter_Act#2002

I wonder why it took an expose from an undercover reporter to change things. By your reasoning I would have expected consumers-who-like-good-tasting meat to rise up.

As I said before, I think there is an emotional element here. An emotionally based position has been taken, due to an emotional reaction to certain animals which is inconsistent ... and no, I didn't say it was solely about taste.

Humans have that remarkable ability to undertake collective activity to promote the group, which includes having some control of their food sources. Being omnivores, those food sources can and do include animal and plant derived matter. More of certain animals now live, thanks to our chosen method of food harvesting. As all animals will eventually, more of those certain animals die for the simple reason of why they are alive in the first place: they are a food animal.

This topic is once again rather pointless, as the vegan position is both a matter of taste, and an emotional reaction to animals.

Why would you choose to classify that as moral?

DR

 

[Belz...]

I've worked in a slaughterhouse or two... please tell me what "conditions" need to be improved.

My comment was not my personal opinion. I simply meant that, if it were shown that there was unnecessary suffering in slaughterhouses, the solution would not be to stop eating meat.

 

[Belz...]

Was that supposed to be an intelligent argument?

Yes. The idea (as in my previous post) that we should skip meat because _some_ animals suffer in the process is not logical.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

I think it's because pseudo-nihilism is just your pseudo-philosophical defence mechanism to fend off troublesome thoughts about whether it's actually consistent with the rest of your moral views and with the rest of how you live your lives to kill animals for the taste of them.

I have no troubling thoughts about that. You make the claim that it is immoral to kill animals for food. I disagree. You give some reasons why it is. I give some reasons why it isn't. We disagree with each other because we have different opinions about morality.

You think I am in denial and troubled about some internal moral inconsistency. I think you have to believe this because you can't imagine I can be happy with any other values or opinions than yours.

I simply don't see killing animals for food as immoral. The only case you make is that it causes unnecessary suffering. I make the case that some suffering is necessary for me to eat them and some will suffer if I don't.

Like it or not we are part of the natural world. If I don't help thin the deer population, a great many of them will starve to death each winter. I actually pay a lot of money each year to maintain natural habitats in my state. The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources sets limits on how many deer I can kill each year to try to maintain a healthy population. There are many more deer in North America now than there were in the early 1900s.

So, let's say that I have climbed a tree with my rifle before sunrise. A small herd of deer cautiously enters a clearing near some oak trees to eat the acorns that have fallen there. I pick one and put the crosshairs on her. I wait for her to turn so that I can get a shot at her heart. When I pull the trigger, all the deer will run away except her. Why is it immoral for me to do that?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I have no troubling thoughts about that. You make the claim that it is immoral to kill animals for food. I disagree. You give some reasons why it is. I give some reasons why it isn't. We disagree with each other because we have different opinions about morality.

You think I am in denial and troubled about some internal moral inconsistency.

If your moral views about the treatment of animals and of humans are greatly different for no justifiable reason then of course you have some internal moral inconsistency. The fact that you are still posting about it indicates you have some kind of emotional stake in the matter.

I simply don't see killing animals for food as immoral. The only case you make is that it causes unnecessary suffering. I make the case that some suffering is necessary for me to eat them and some will suffer if I don't.

The argument that "some suffering is necessary for me to eat them, therefore causing some suffering is okay" makes no sense at all to me. It looks like you are starting from the assumption that it must be okay for you to eat them, and then reasoning backwards from that point.

The argument that "some will suffer if I don't eat them" seems similarly questionable.

Like it or not we are part of the natural world.

I think at this stage the polite pretence that you just haven't heard of the naturalistic fallacy is wearing thin. This is nothing but wilful ignorance on your part.

So, let's say that I have climbed a tree with my rifle before sunrise. A small herd of deer cautiously enters a clearing near some oak trees to eat the acorns that have fallen there. I pick one and put the crosshairs on her. I wait for her to turn so that I can get a shot at her heart. When I pull the trigger, all the deer will run away except her. Why is it immoral for me to do that?

For the same reason that it would be immoral of me to kill you for the fun of killing you and/or the fun of eating you, if I had other food options and you did not want to die.

Sure I could argue that you might die soon anyway, and in a worse way than by being humanely shot by me, but I don't think you'd find those arguments convincing.

Of course a deer is not quite like a human, but can you explain without resorting to the naturalistic fallacy what qualities a deer has that makes killing it something which you can do for the fun of it, that humans do not have?

Now I've answered your question, will you answer mine? Why haven't you written that email to James Randi explaining to him that his belief that he has some moral advantage over frauds like Uri Geller is nothing more than arrogant, self-important nonsense because we are all animals and the laws of physics have no morality? Could it be because you have moral convictions, on every issue except that of killing animals so you can enjoy the taste-sensation of eating them?

 

[volatile]

As opposed to being a pseudo-nihilist postmodernist of convenience while I eat my hamburger, and then going off to express moral value judgments about issues like rape, genocide, slavery, terrorism, the rule of law, child molestation, official corruption, animal cruelty, scientific fraud, psychics ripping people off and the wide variety of important moral issues that don't concern your diet. Those are all fair game for moral judgments, and nobody bats an eyelid when people make moral judgments on these boards about them.

I can go to this or other subforums and bash psychics as immoral, or terrorists as immoral, or crooked politicians as immoral, or corrupt cops as immoral, or murderers as immoral and nobody will bat an eyelid. The pseudo-nihilists of convenience all have better things to do than pop in to those threads to say "I'm ripping people off by pretending to be psychic right now, ha ha!". But say that eating meat is morally questionable and suddenly it's wall to wall postmodernist nihilism - but just for one thread, just on that one topic.

Don't you think that's interesting? That you or Ron_Tomkins have never gotten around to emailing Randi to say "I think it's disgusting and arrogant and dishonest the way you think you are better than Uri Geller. Your smug, sanctimonious moralising has no place in this uncaring universe where animals kill each other every day"? What's the difference, if all moral claims are meaningless? So why hasn't Ron_Tomkins written that email? Why haven't you?

I think it's because pseudo-nihilism is just your pseudo-philosophical defence mechanism to fend off troublesome thoughts about whether it's actually consistent with the rest of your moral views and with the rest of how you live your lives to kill animals for the taste of them.

Nail on the head, KL. Nail on the head.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

But is it morally better to be harmonious as a society than not, and if so why? Is there anything more to morality than harmoniousness, or is that the end of the matter?

All these questions are valid and pertain human society. Not nature.

Is this the naturalistic fallacy tapdancing back out

No, it's not, and I have already explained why in detail on previous posts.

(if you are claiming that the survival of a gene is morally good),

I'm not. So clearly you're not paying attention at all.
You see why you're arguing against a strawman? You continue arguing against things that I have already explained to you I am not claiming.

(if you are claiming that the survival of a gene is morally meaningless)?

Yes. That is correct. Genes have no sense of moral. Memes do.
If you read some more about the subject, you may understand why. But you have to get outside of your box and read (Suggested reading: "The Selfish Gene". Hey did you notice the title, by the way?)

One last time. The laws of physics are amoral. Animals are (mostly) amoral.

Mostly? Animals are amoral. Period.

Humans are animals and part of nature as much as anything else, and humans have moral ideas.

Yes. But humans are one single species in a planet with 30 million species.
Morality concerns only the humans who created them. No single animal has the ability to have an awareness about them, and thus they can't have a "vote", which is another abstraction that requires a developed Neocortex and enough exposure to our culture and our memes.

Your keep repeating "But animals and the laws of physics have no moral ideas! Therefore we should not either."

Okay Kevin, tell you what: If you find one single instance in which I've said that, I will write you a check for a Million Dollars. How about that?

That's trivially obvious. I mean, do we think we're better than animals or the laws of physics? The very idea is disgusting!".

I have not made that claim either. But I will add that "disgusting" is a human concept.

"What I tell you three times is true. I don't see what your problem is, I've told you I'm right three times. Now I'm scarpering".

Sorry, but it's actually quite the opposite: Repeating something doesn't make it any more true.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Don't you think that's interesting? That you or Ron_Tomkins have never gotten around to emailing Randi to say "I think it's disgusting and arrogant and dishonest the way you think you are better than Uri Geller. Your smug, sanctimonious moralising has no place in this uncaring universe where animals kill each other every day"? What's the difference, if all moral claims are meaningless? So why hasn't Ron_Tomkins written that email? Why haven't you?

Because not all moral claims are meaningless. Because, once again, I have not claimed anything against morality as it concerns us humans and our society. I'm arguing projecting human morality on nature, which is rooted in a Disney concept of nature. Nature does not think like us, because it doesn't even think in the first place. It lacks conscious and thus, moral.

Morality in nature is a meaningless concept. This is what I and everybody else on the omnivore side is arguing.

Now for the last time, stop wasting your energy on that scarecrow. It's not me. I'm over here.

 

[BenBurch]

Wow, what a long thread about nothing.

It is utterly impossible to survive on this planet without killing animals.

You say you are a vegan? How did you manage that without tilling the soil?

Because you till the soil and you kill worms and moles and snakes and anything else your spade or plow cuts through.

You eat just natural fruits and nuts? What about the worms that depend on those things to grow and mature? Do you somehow identify the wormy ones and leave them on the tree? What do you do with the maggot when you cut open and apple and find one in there?

Do you breathe? You have absolutely inhaled and killed small insects.

Do you bathe? Or wash your bedding? You have drowned entire dust mite civilizations.

Do you drive a car? What are all those splatters on the windshield?

 

[Manopolus]

If your moral views about the treatment of animals and of humans are greatly different for no justifiable reason then of course you have some internal moral inconsistency. The fact that you are still posting about it indicates you have some kind of emotional stake in the matter.

But many of us have GIVEN you a justifiable reason. Let me spell it out for you one more time in greater specificity.

Functionally, what exactly do ethics do, why should we limit ourselves in such a way, and from what basic truths do they come?

On a one-on-one level, ethical action is a form of communication which inspires trust and facilitates a bonding. Work toward a common goal requires this type of trust. If I treat you well, I can expect you to treat me well in return. From this comes the golden rule, among other things. This expands to an in-group which must have some degree of trust and cohesiveness to function properly. In the world today, all the human world could be called an extended in-group because of (and only because of) global communications.

So basically, ethics serve the purpose of bonding humanity in a way that promotes functional and peaceful society... although humanity obviously possesses many dysfunctional parts still.

Exactly how do farm animals contribute to human society? They are not a contributing part of it in any way other than as food. My main point is that morality is a thing which serves human society, rather than a thing which is higher than human society. Once we break past the species, ethics have no meaning. Cows have no way whatsoever of contributing to human society other than as food.

The argument that "some suffering is necessary for me to eat them, therefore causing some suffering is OK" makes no sense at all to me. It looks like you are starting from the assumption that it must be OK for you to eat them, and then reasoning backward from that point.

This is not an argument I will try to support. It is obvious circular reasoning the way you stated it here.

The argument that "some will suffer if I don't eat them" seems similarly questionable.

What else would we do with them? Believe me, if we just turned all livestock loose tomorrow, due to some pointless moral high ground, it would be quite detrimental to human society, and not just in the lack of food. What, exactly should we do with them if we don't eat them? They would cause countless traffic accidents if we just set them loose... oh wait, they already do when they get loose on their own. Should we still keep them in their pens and continue to feed them? This would not be a very useful thing to do.

I think at this stage the polite pretense that you just haven't heard of the naturalistic fallacy is wearing thin. This is nothing but willful ignorance on your part.

Outside the species, there is no morality. Nature has no morality, except in the society of man. I don't see that as a fallacy. "Civilization" and "civilized" refer to human society only. When we include other species, we use the words "natural" and "nature." The word "civilized" has no meaning when speaking of nature. Thus, I don't see any "naturalistic fallacy" in these arguments.

For the same reason that it would be immoral of me to kill you for the fun of killing you and/or the fun of eating you, if I had other food options and you did not want to die.

Nope, this would break down the cohesiveness and function of human society. Thus, you cannot claim the same reason at all. The deaths of cows and pigs do not do this.

Anyway, the rest seems to be more of the same, and already answered, so I'll stop here.

 

[Thurkon]

Kevin, it would really be helpful to this discussion if you would cease the hyperbole and personal insults. Honestly, it's not helping your position.

As for:

"The argument that "some suffering is necessary for me to eat them, therefore causing some suffering is okay" makes no sense at all to me."

The "suffering" argument is irrelevant. There are ways to kill livestock that is relatively, if not completely, painless. There are workarounds for this, and I would pay more for food that was raised and slaughtered more humanely.

Before you go further, you only have one point to address: Demonstrate please, if you would, why killing a life form with a central nervous system is immoral whilst killing life forms without such inner workings is not.

Remember, all such arguments concerning pain, suffering, etc. can be eliminated from the equation. The issue is the inherent value of life, be it animal or vegetable. Why is one more valuable than the other to you?

 

[Belz...]

Kevin, it would really be helpful to this discussion if you would cease the hyperbole and personal insults. Honestly, it's not helping your position.

That's like asking time to stop moving forward.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

If your moral views about the treatment of animals and of humans are greatly different for no justifiable reason then of course you have some internal moral inconsistency. The fact that you are still posting about it indicates you have some kind of emotional stake in the matter.

The justifiable reason is that there are different moral standards regarding the treatment of humans and animals. And around we go again.

The argument that "some suffering is necessary for me to eat them, therefore causing some suffering is okay" makes no sense at all to me. It looks like you are starting from the assumption that it must be okay for you to eat them, and then reasoning backwards from that point.

The argument that "some will suffer if I don't eat them" seems similarly questionable.

If there is enough food in the woods to support 100 deer but there are 200 deer there, how many of them starve (suffer)? The answer is, all of them. They all eat until the food is gone.

I think at this stage the polite pretence that you just haven't heard of the naturalistic fallacy is wearing thin. This is nothing but wilful ignorance on your part.

You are the one who keeps tying my hands to avoid the truth.

For the same reason that it would be immoral of me to kill you for the fun of killing you and/or the fun of eating you, if I had other food options and you did not want to die.

Sure I could argue that you might die soon anyway, and in a worse way than by being humanely shot by me, but I don't think you'd find those arguments convincing.

Of course a deer is not quite like a human, but can you explain without resorting to the naturalistic fallacy what qualities a deer has that makes killing it something which you can do for the fun of it, that humans do not have?

The deer lacks a certain human quality. The quality of being a human. See, a deer is not a human. Different morals apply. Just as you feel that different morals apply for insects and plants. I keep pointing out that you and I disagree where the line is. You keep arguing that there is no line.

Now I've answered your question, will you answer mine? Why haven't you written that email to James Randi explaining to him that his belief that he has some moral advantage over frauds like Uri Geller is nothing more than arrogant, self-important nonsense because we are all animals and the laws of physics have no morality? Could it be because you have moral convictions, on every issue except that of killing animals so you can enjoy the taste-sensation of eating them?

Because that is your little contrivance. If our difference of opinion is causing an internal moral inconsistency somewhere, it is within you.