What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Prometheus]

Do they plan to feed them?

We could use them for transportation.

 

[Aitch]

So, on the subject of animal rights, how do people feel about animals' rights to privacy?

 

[Meed]

The claim is that veganism is in the animal's interest. It is hard to argue allowing extinction on that basis.

Why? How is extinction against the interest of any given cow or chicken?

 

[Meed]

then, we do not need laws against animal cruelty
Obviously, you are wrong here.

We don't need laws against anything. We want and choose to have laws against certain things.

 

[Meed]

Exactly. But why do you consider that to be a problem?

A trivially true statement is only a problem in that it doesn't offer anything in the way of explanation. To give an extreme example: "I don't have a problem with abortion. Medical procedures are not necessarily a bad thing."

 

[cyborg]

Why? How is extinction against the interest of any given cow or chicken?

Fundamentally the only "interest" one can say that is common to life is replication.

Not replicating = fail.

 

[Meed]

Fundamentally the only "interest" one can say that is common to life is replication.

Not replicating = fail.

No, you are anthropomorphisizing evolution. Life that is still around is still around, because it is good at replicating. That's all there is to it. Interest is a psychological state.

Even though animals generally have interest in mating, individual cows are very unlikely to have any concept of species extinction, nor would they have knowledge it was occurring. Ethically speaking it'd be about as cruel as a pet neutering campaign.

 

[cyborg]

No, you are anthropomorphisizing evolution.

Hey, I didn't start it by anthropomorphizing animal's interests; it's the consistency of the vegan argument of being in favour of the animal's interests vs the environmental impact of farm animals that is leading to this state.

Life that is still around is still around, because it is good at replicating. That's all there is to it. Interest is a psychological state.

Yes - which is why it is perfectly valid as a meat eater to argue for a different set of presumed interests that are just as 'valid'.

 

[Belz...]

I can't speak for all meat, but as far as beef cattle, I have personally seen countless times how they are raised here in Texas, and I can tell you that they have healthy, happy lives for the most part.

Well, there's a reason why cows will regularly approach people out of curiosity. I don't think wild bovine will do that.

 

[Meed]

Hey, I didn't start it by anthropomorphizing animal's interests; it's the consistency of the vegan argument of being in favour of the animal's interests vs the environmental impact of farm animals that is leading to this state.

Just because one thing is false anthropomorphisizing doesn't mean everything is. Animals have interests, but extinction is not one of them (or at least that seems very unlikely).

Yes - which is why it is perfectly valid as a meat eater to argue for a different set of presumed interests that are just as 'valid'.

Didn't follow that exactly.

 

[Marcus]

Well, there's a reason why cows will regularly approach people out of curiosity. I don't think wild bovine will do that.

It's been a while since we had any of the wild variety here. I don't think the modern domestic breeds would fare too well without humans. There are some longhorn breeds that are pretty sturdy, perhaps PETA has some land they can run around on after the other breeds are made to go extinct.

My cousin raises buffalo as a hobby (he's a lawyer the rest of the time) the meat is a little lean but tasty.

 

[Drudgewire]

My cousin raises buffalo as a hobby (he's a lawyer the rest of the time) the meat is a little lean but tasty.

The leanness makes it the best meat for jerky. Soooo good.

 

[cyborg]

Just because one thing is false anthropomorphisizing doesn't mean everything is. Animals have interests, but extinction is not one of them (or at least that seems very unlikely).

So what I said stands then?

Didn't follow that exactly.

You said, "interest is a psychological state". Since any psycological state applied to animals is an anthropomorphic projection we might as well presume any we can conjure up is valid.

 

[Prometheus]

Why? How is extinction against the interest of any given cow or chicken?

Near-extinction may be worse, actually.

 

[Prometheus]

A trivially true statement is only a problem in that it doesn't offer anything in the way of explanation. To give an extreme example: "I don't have a problem with abortion. Medical procedures are not necessarily a bad thing."

True.

 

[Belz...]

It's been a while since we had any of the wild variety here. I don't think the modern domestic breeds would fare too well without humans. There are some longhorn breeds that are pretty sturdy, perhaps PETA has some land they can run around on after the other breeds are made to go extinct.

My cousin raises buffalo as a hobby (he's a lawyer the rest of the time) the meat is a little lean but tasty.

Just to clarify what I said: domesticated animals, even cattle, seem a lot more comfortable around people and a lot less fearful of just about anything. I'd wager that they are simply less stressed about their everyday lives and they have us to thank for that.

Wild animals, not so much.

 

[Meed]

So what I said stands then?

You said, "interest is a psychological state". Since any psycological state applied to animals is an anthropomorphic projection we might as well presume any we can conjure up is valid.

I'm sorry, but I'm completely lost as to what you're drawing these conclusions from. You seem to be reading things into my posts that aren't there.

 

[Withnail]

Which bit of that relieves animal suffering due to natural events? Don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against any of the activities you just listed. However you were claiming that your motivation for killing deer was not because you enjoyed the act of going out and killing them or enjoyed eating them, but because you were preventing them from suffering due to starvation. If that was genuinely your motivation I would have thought you'd be doing things to reduce the suffering of similar entities, and looking for ways to relieve the suffering of deer other than shooting them. Since you don't list anything like that it seems like my earlier hypothesis was correct and your behaviour is consistent with wanting to kill and eat deer, and not consistent with wanting to prevent suffering.

I'm still trying to read the entire thread but this is just dishonest. He does in fact list things he does that reduce the suffering of deer and other animals other than shooting them. Maybe an actual list would help your reading comprehension:

1. plants food pots for deer to feed YEAR ROUND!
2. Supplies food source for hummingbird (which he does not even eat)
3. Bat shelter
4. Clean water (it is his job but I don't think that matters, afterall, I am guessing he choose that field of work, and not for the incredible money it offers)

So really Kevin, you are so intent on being right, you don't care if you lie to give the impression you are right. I don't think most people are fooled and you look like a jerk.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

What things are worth is not relevant; whether or not they suffer is the point. When you kick a rock, does it experience pain? I see no reason to think that plants are significantly different.

So, you know how cells of the plant feel, that's good, and if something doesn't feel, it is OK to kill it?

This is at the core of the argument and it's no coincidence that we keep going back at this issue over and over and over and over again.

Basically, if the argument is: "Killing animals is wrong, because they suffer. The ones that don't suffer don't count", then all is settled as long as we make sure we kill the animal fast enough so that they don't suffer.

And following this same line of reasoning, killing humans would be ok too as long as we do it in a way that they don't suffer.

So the whole "It's only wrong because they suffer" argument is simply plain bull.

 

[StrangeLoop]

(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?

Ah the duality of modern sapiens. Let me ask this: Where does one stop the slider of what is morally irreprehensible? The title includes only animals as privileged. What is being said is then that spiders have less 'soulness' than squirrels, and it follows, squirrels less than cats, cats less than chimpanzees, chimpanzees less than humans.

In the 21st century we, at least in the industrial societies, have no evolutionary necessity to consume meat. On the other hand, where do you draw the line? And how do you justify it? What of overpopulation, if it is severe with no viable solution in sight, is it better for half the population to die through plague, dare I say, even genocide, if the species will survive another 10,000 years because of the attrition?

What's overlooked is how long we've been modernized, compared to how long evolution has been tempering our physiology. If it comes down to it, we will kill before being killed; usually even if it is uneven, and especially if we can get away with it. One can cite examples of one dying for another, or in place of another voluntarily, but what has the true grip? Besides, altruism evolves too. It's urbanely nice to conclude we will act magnanimously in the harshest circumstances, even Christ-like, but it is a farce, because those occasions rarely arise.

So it's simple. You justify it when you have to. It's not agreeable to hold either view. Maybe what I've said thus far doesn't imply that I think we should strive for the type of world of which Einstein said:

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)