What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Right Kevin - and as soon as you can give us a non-arbitrary assesment of what constitutes sufficient similarity we can drop it.

Reptiles, for example, don't have very similar brains to you lacking a neo-cortex. Good eating or no?

If we're arguing over whether we should draw the line just above reptiles or somewhere below it, most of the argument is over. Have you changed your position so that you now hold it to be immoral to kill pigs, cows and so on for food? If so I'll be glad to discuss this point about reptiles.

Otherwise it looks to me like you're just trolling and you have no real interest in the answers you are asking for.

Really Kevin? Are you that naive to think that people wouldn't argue that?

We do these things to members of our own species we consider to be "subhuman" for a start. It's also the reason why we don't go ahead and eat those incapable of rich mental lives. It is how people morally reason, even if you don't think it ought to be how they do so.

Is that your actual position? Or are you just arguing that some hypothetical other person might argue that? If it's the second I think this is just more trolling. I don't feel the need to argue with irrational people who are a figment of your imagination.

In theory?

You can't go around lambasting "meat-eaters" for their "incoherent" arguments whilst your own moral basis is ill-defined!

This is just a failure of reading comprehension on your part. I was leaving open the possibilities of moral systems which aren't concerned with distinctions between different kinds of animal, and moral systems which attempted to make coherent distinctions of that sort but which failed to do so.

Then despite your objections to the first point it really does all come down to how you determine "very, very similar".

It does indeed, but do you have a point to make about that topic?

 

[cyborg]

If we're arguing over whether we should draw the line just above reptiles or somewhere below it, most of the argument is over.

No, I'm asking you were you draw the line because it's you who keeps on whining about meat-eaters not having their moral systems in place.

If you haven't got a robust system in place then you're really not in any better position from which to criticise.

I am not, you will note, saying you are wrong to choose the morals you want to have.

Is that your actual position? Or are you just arguing that some hypothetical other person might argue that?

No, people do actually think like that. I include myself in the set of people. I acknowledge that I value animals - and everything else - basically on what I can get out of them.

This is just a failure of reading comprehension on your part.

It is not possible to read things that are not there.

It does indeed, but do you have a point to make about that topic?

I have done so: there is nothing less arbitrary about your position than mine.

I acknowledge my emotionally convenient choices. You do not. That is the difference.

 

[Belz...]

If we're arguing over whether we should draw the line just above reptiles or somewhere below it, most of the argument is over.

 

[Belz...]

No, people do actually think like that. I include myself in the set of people. I acknowledge that I value animals - and everything else - basically on what I can get out of them.

Including humans, I may add. Just because you feel empathy toward a being doesn't remove all traces of selfishness.

In fact, I don't see how one can be entirely altruistic.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, I'm asking you were you draw the line because it's you who keeps on whining about meat-eaters not having their moral systems in place.

If you haven't got a robust system in place then you're really not in any better position from which to criticise.

This is a very silly tu quoque argument: "If there is any aspect of your position which is not totally nailed down, then I can be as inconsistent as I like!".

I'm quite happy to admit I know next to nothing about reptile neurology.

No, people do actually think like that. I include myself in the set of people. I acknowledge that I value animals - and everything else - basically on what I can get out of them.

Fair enough then. The poor and psychopaths will always be with us. There's not much point trying to discuss morality with the latter though.

 

[BenBurch]

Kevin, what about my assertion that killing animals is unavoidable if you intend to live on Earth?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Around and around we go.

So in your "moral" scheme when you want to eat something, you can kill it and say "Nom nom nom, this is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless". Okay, why can't Jeffrey Dahmer rape and murder (and eat) kids and say "This too is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless"?

You're going to say something like "Humans and animals are different, duh, how can you not see that?".

What you are not going to do, based on past experience, is present any coherent explanation of why it's okay to eat animals that doesn't resort to blatant speciesism and doesn't make it okay to eat the mentally disabled.

Blatant speciesism? That is amazing coming from someone who thinks it "likely" that insects are mindless automata so it is OK to kill them. I draw the line between humans and other animals. You draw the line between animals that you think are likely to have conciousness and those likely to be automata. Somehow you believe that your distinction is a moral one and mine is not.

You've got the same problem as Ron. You need to explain why is it moral to bond humans together to promote a functional and peaceful society in the first place, and why the same moral principle doesn't make it a good thing to bond humans to animals and promote a society that is peaceful in the sense that you don't kill animals. You need to do this without resorting to speciesism or other morally irrelevant (but convenient) distinctions.

The argument that entities which do not contribute to society can be killed was one that the Nazis rather liked and used to justify the mass killing of the elderly, the sick and the disabled. Most modern people think it's morally good not to kill people even if they can't contribute to human society. Once again, it's your job to explain why you think you can kill animals in this situations but not humans, without appealing to differences which are morally irrelevant.

Godwin again? This is the same arguement as above so just read my reply again.

The good old shift-the-burden-of-proof strategy, I see. "I can kill microbes. Everyone agrees on that. Therefore it's up to you to prove I can't kill bonobos and dolphins".

I think the burden of proof to come up with a coherent moral theory is on the people killing things for food, or the supporters of that practice. You're the one killing things, or having them killed on your behalf, I think it's up to you to justify your own behaviour.

We keep doing it, but you keep claiming "No fair! You can't use THAT arguement!" It's looking a little childish now.

Around and around indeed. What is it about animals that makes it okay to kill and eat a bonobo because you like the taste better than tofu, but not okay to kill a mentally disabled human because you like the taste better than tofu?

One is human, the other is not.

In theory, if human actions had not created that situation, and there was no other way of managing the population, then you could compare such a situation to road kill. Otherwise it's more like putting thirteen people in a twelve person lifeboat and then saying it's okay to murder one of them because they would have drowned anyway.

However dropping contraceptive baits and growing tofu might well end up being a more efficient way of preventing deer starvation, if that was ever really your goal in the first place. I suspect that the "we must stop the deer from suffering!" line was just a fairy story though, and the real goal was to find an excuse to kill and eat the deer. I suspect that you have absolutely no interest whatsoever in preventing the suffering of deer-like entities caused by natural events like winter, unless by an amazing coincidence you want to eat them.

The people in the lifeboat would decide amoungst themselves what to do, because they are all humans. You suspect that I don't care about the suffering of deer? I stated otherwise and you don't believe me. You are entitled to your suspicions and we all know what they are worth.

I've got a consistent explanation for where and why I draw the line, and the burden of proof is on you to provide yours if you want to go around killing things and call yourself moral. Just asserting "Deers aren't humans, QED" gets you nowhere - everyone agrees on that fact, but you need to present the moral value judgements that turn that difference of fact into a moral difference you can kill over, without resorting to morally irrelevant distinctions like skin colour or species.

Not everyone agrees on that. In fact, myself and others here make just that arguement. Please explain why making the distinction between humans and animals is morally irrelevant but making the distinction between likely to have conciousness and likely to be automata is morally relevant.

 

[tsig]

Sure, although I suspect that this will not lead to any fruitful discussion.

As I said earlier I take it as a starting point that pain, suffering and death are bad for me, and that it's inconsistent not to universalise that judgment to all beings capable of pain and suffering. My pain and my happiness is extra-important to me, of course, but that's true of each individual's pain and happiness and that's no basis for thinking that my happiness is more important than anyone else's.

Neither of those two claims are scientific claims: they are value judgements. Because I'm an intelligent, rational entity capable of understanding whole paragraphs at a time, I understand the implications of those value judgments and apply them relatively consistently. Yes, that means that I think it's better to act in ways consistent with these value judgments than not to do so, and I think that I am a better person if I act in ways consistent with these value judgments than people who do not. Yes, that means I pass judgment on other times and other cultures from that perspective. Otherwise I would be inconsistent.

Causing bad things to happen to conscious entities is sometimes inevitable, and sometimes necessary to my survival, and in those cases I've got no moral problems with it. If it's not inevitable, and it's not necessary, then there's a prima facie moral case not to do it.

Alternative starting points are possible: I already talked about Kant's approach. Alternative starting points must be evaluated in terms of coherence and usefulness, and if they are incoherent or useless they should be rejected.

The meat-eaters here have been asked what their starting point(s), their initial value judgment(s), are, and their answers all fall to pieces with a few seconds' critical analysis. Social contractarianism boils down to "acting morally is doing whatever society lets me get away with", appeals to game theory go the same way, appeals to instinct would label rape and genocide as moral behaviour, appeals to the naturalistic fallacy at this point in the thread demonstrate abject stupidity, and appeals to the species boundary as a moral dividing line are straightforwardly idiotic.

The problem meat eaters have is that they need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can kill animals for pleasure but that we can't kill the mentally disabled for pleasure. They need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can keep pigs in US-style factory farms for pleasure but that we can't skin a live cat for pleasure. That or they can just embrace live cat-skinning and killing the mentally disabled, I suppose, but they tend not to want to do that.

I see, what's good for you is good for the universe and what's bad for you is bad for the universe and "because you're an intelligent, rational entity capable of understanding whole paragraphs at a time" we should just accept your wisdom as doctrine.

And we're all wrong because it smells bad to you and besides we want to skin live cats and kill the mentally disabled.

You're not arguing philosophy. Its all personal preferences and straw men.

 

[Morrigan]

The problem meat eaters have is that they need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can kill animals for pleasure but that we can't kill the mentally disabled for pleasure. They need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can keep pigs in US-style factory farms for pleasure but that we can't skin a live cat for pleasure. That or they can just embrace live cat-skinning and killing the mentally disabled, I suppose, but they tend not to want to do that.

The problem vegans have is that they need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can kill insects and pest rodents for pleasure/convenience but that we can't kill cows and pigs for pleasure/convenience.

kill animals for pleasure but that we can't kill the mentally disabled for pleasure.

Very simple. Even mentally disabled humans are more conscious, self-aware and intelligent than animals. As someone else said, if cows started to organize and ask for "rights", it would be another story.

They need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can keep pigs in US-style factory farms for pleasure but that we can't skin a live cat for pleasure.

You really see no difference between killing a farm animal to feed people, and torturing a pet out of sheer, gratuitous cruelty? Really?

This is a very silly tu quoque argument: "If there is any aspect of your position which is not totally nailed down, then I can be as inconsistent as I like!".

LOL. Evasion noted.

Fair enough then. The poor and psychopaths will always be with us. There's not much point trying to discuss morality with the latter though.

Did you just call another poster a psychopath? You, who sees no difference between food production and wanton cruelty? Unbelievable. Keep digging that hole.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Around and around we go.

So in your "moral" scheme when you want to eat something, you can kill it and say "Nom nom nom, this is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless". Okay, why can't Jeffrey Dahmer rape and murder (and eat) kids and say "This too is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless"?

You're going to say something like "Humans and animals are different, duh, how can you not see that?".

Of course. Sure, Kevin. That's what I would respond
You just go on and keep asserting that I've made the claim "We should be immoral because there's no such thing as objective moral" because you can't understand/believe that one doesn't automatically follow from the other.
Just go on. Like a parrot.

What you are not going to do, based on past experience, is present any coherent explanation of why it's okay to eat animals that doesn't resort to blatant speciesism and doesn't make it okay to eat the mentally disabled.

It's neither okay nor wrong. You see the part I've bolded in your question? That's where the problem lies.

Until you understand that you're arguing a concept that's subjective and man-made as if it was objective and inherent in nature, you will never get outside of that circle you're spinning around.

 

[Radrook]

According to the Bible the Good Lord gave mankind permission to use animals as food.

 

[Manopolus]

Around and around we go.

So in your "moral" scheme when you want to eat something, you can kill it and say "Nom nom nom, this is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless". Okay, why can't Jeffrey Dahmer rape and murder (and eat) kids and say "This too is nature in action, and projecting human morality on to nature is meaningless"?

Already answered. Allowing this sort of thing to happen would be detrimental to society.

You're going to say something like "Humans and animals are different, duh, how can you not see that?".

Humans are animals. So what? You seem to be working very hard at not understanding what I am saying.

What you are not going to do, based on past experience, is present any coherent explanation of why it's okay to eat animals that doesn't resort to blatant speciesism and doesn't make it okay to eat the mentally disabled.

Again, eating the mentally disabled or babies would be detrimental to human society, eating animals is not.

You've got the same problem as Ron. You need to explain why is it moral to bond humans together to promote a functional and peaceful society in the first place, and why the same moral principle doesn't make it a good thing to bond humans to animals and promote a society that is peaceful in the sense that you don't kill animals. You need to do this without resorting to speciesism or other morally irrelevant (but convenient) distinctions.

Excuse me, but that is what morals are. Please describe to me any ethic whose use does not either promote the cohesion of human society, or help our ability to function as a group (I mean other than your own silly arguments here). Speaking in terms of evolution and function, this is what morals do! There is no such thing as animal society. There is only human society. Other species do not have the capability of contributing -- other than as food, or perhaps as pets. They certainly don't take part in any decisions or discussions.

The argument that entities which do not contribute to society can be killed was one that the Nazis rather liked and used to justify the mass killing of the elderly, the sick and the disabled. Most modern people think it's morally good not to kill people even if they can't contribute to human society. Once again, it's your job to explain why you think you can kill animals in this situations but not humans, without appealing to differences which are morally irrelevant.

Proves my point, rather than refuting it. The Nazis were an in-group who decided anyone outside of their group did not deserve consideration. This was common in our earlier history. Things are often this way to some degree now. It's called discrimination.

There are good reasons to extend ethics to humanity as a whole. Everybody is connected to everybody. There is no in-group that can be fully seperate from the whole. This would include the mentally disabled. Wouldn't we have to ask how stupid a person has to be in order to be excluded, in this case? Better to just include them all in the human family, no?. Also, someone gave birth to them, and that same someone probably cares about them. This is not so with animals as a whole.

 

[Belz...]

According to the Bible the Good Lord gave mankind permission to use animals as food.

If the vegans didn't listen to our rational arguments, I don't think the crazy ones will have much weight, Rad.

 

[Manopolus]

According to the Bible the Good Lord gave mankind permission to use animals as food.

Furthermore, I don't think that some uber powerful alien being's advice has any pertinence whatsoever in the discussion. If God exists, he's not part of the species. Although, as a sentient being, he might be able to contribute... I hadn't noticed that he ever did.

 

[Cain]

You make less and less points in your posts, Cain. I suppose this argument is nearing it's end. I haven't bothered answering to the parts with little substance to them in the quote below.

Some things are not worth stating more than several times; your last post was less remarkable than others because of its non-responsiveness.

There's nothing "internally inconsistent" about my arguments. They can be summed up as the brutalizing effect animal cruelty has on humans, and other harmful effects to society. If you can't see how it applies to some specific case, I'll explain it. Just remember, all of my moral rules start from the assumption "beings capable of abstract thinking are worthy of moral consideration". That you claim it's arbitrary is not an internal inconsistency.

Your approach has been inconsistent throughout. Can you imagine if a vegan said we should not consume animals because of the "brutalizing effect on society"? Well, I suppose some vegans even make that argument. What evidence do you have to support these "brutalizing" claims? This suggests that it's not as morally wrong to torture cats and get away with it, then to never torture cats but convince others you did. Not only is it a ridiculous argument, but one you failed to consistently apply: when choosing to save a five year-old versus a freezer full of embryos, the proper response would should have been to discuss the social effects. Instead you went straight to the status of the embryos.

Developed and lost. They don't have any now. But this isn't really all that important. The response above is all you need to read of this post.

No, they have an interest in continuing to live. It's certainly better to kill animals (human and non-human) when they're not conscious, but it denies the freedom to experience their lives. An individual is their identity. If you could upload a person's brain architecture and memories into a computer (as in, say The 6th Day) then it would be immoral to destroy the software containing an identity. Organisms at the beginning of their life (e.g. an embryo) lack an identity, and do not live under the threat of identity death.

"Value of life"? Since when do we assume there's such a thing? Does it apply to all life, or just the animals you like?

You're now attempting to quote me out of context, which is why with you it's often useful to go back to my original post where you wanted to duck an argument because you claimed it dealt with abortion, a topic for "a new thread." No, I answered, it goes to the value of life, or the "alleged value of life," if you prefer.

I maintain a new embryo is not a "replacement" any more than a new five-year old. Ask a woman whose given stillbirth if her other children were "replacements".

You do not want to go down this road. Funerals for five year-olds are very different than miscarriages. Furthermore, I would not be surprised that a woman who miscarries is more likely to "try again," than someone who loses a five year-old.

I believe Kevin has been ignoring me since I stated he's in no position to judge me, but I'll answer this anyway.

We could give that race rights too. If cows develop intellect and ask us nicely, I'd give them moral rights too. Until we actually start eating aliens, this is not an argument.

You should address Kevin directly rather than bury this here. I suspect he will say that if you really think yours is an adequate standard, then you should have the courage to be consistent and apply it to all humans. I look forward to the embryo's plea.

-------------------
Cyborg:

Why not? Isn't the argument that if you're not vegan then such activities are the sort of thing one would engage in?

No. It's immaterial.

My deductions are irrelevant Cain since I want to know YOUR thought processes.

If you cannot connect the dots by now, then I fear there is little hope.

You say that I shouldn't kill an animal for food because of "suffering". But it's only suffering that I instigate that matters. It's presented as a more moral choice but it's not about reducing suffering, just transferring its origin. I don't have a problem with being more involved in the scenarios constructed. You have not convinced me that I should therefore become a vegan.

Again, you're confusing separate arguments. Your original query dealt with an understanding of veganism, then we went from an example of road-kill to seals as meals and back to road kill. This exchange has never been intended as an argument for animal rights. For that you have to look at other posts rather than mindlessly invent end-goals. Best of luck.

 

[tsig]

The problem vegans have is that they need a consistent moral story that passes the sniff test and yields the conclusion that we can kill insects and pest rodents for pleasure/convenience but that we can't kill cows and pigs for pleasure/convenience.




Very simple. Even mentally disabled humans are more conscious, self-aware and intelligent than animals. As someone else said, if cows started to organize and ask for "rights", it would be another story.


You really see no difference between killing a farm animal to feed people, and torturing a pet out of sheer, gratuitous cruelty? Really?


LOL. Evasion noted.

Did you just call another poster a psychopath? You, who sees no difference between food production and wanton cruelty? Unbelievable. Keep digging that hole.

ETA: deleted after further review.

 

[Radrook]

Furthermore, I don't think that some uber powerful alien being's advice has any pertinence whatsoever in the discussion. If God exists, he's not part of the species. Although, as a sentient being, he might be able to contribute... I hadn't noticed that he ever did.

If there is ownership involved then not being part of the species would be irrelevant. Better said, might be considered irrelevant.

 

[Manopolus]

If there is ownership involved then not being part of the species would be irrelevant.

Ownership? Completely off subject here, but are you actually suggesting slavery to an alien life form? Does the notion that we were somehow created by this thing actually make any difference?

(added) If I create a motor vehicle, it does not owe me any ethical requirement to run. The only way it will function in the way that I want it to is if I design it right. There is no moral way in which it "owes" me the decency to function in the way I want it to.

 

[cyborg]

This is a very silly tu quoque argument: "If there is any aspect of your position which is not totally nailed down, then I can be as inconsistent as I like!".

No, it's not a tu quoque because I am not arguing that your moral system is wrong. The point is that you being aggressive and dismissive of other viewpoints is based on you accusing people of doing things you are doing.

I'm quite happy to admit I know next to nothing about reptile neurology.

So as far as you know eating reptiles are compatible with a vegan diet?

 

[cyborg]

No. It's immaterial.

Then your vegan reasoning is quite different to Kevin's it seems.

If you cannot connect the dots by now, then I fear there is little hope.

Yet again Cain my ability to connect dots is irrelevant since it is your dot joining ability being analysed.

What part of the above do you not understand?

Again, you're confusing separate arguments. Your original query dealt with an understanding of veganism, then we went from an example of road-kill to seals as meals and back to road kill. This exchange has never been intended as an argument for animal rights. For that you have to look at other posts rather than mindlessly invent end-goals. Best of luck.

So nothing then. Again.