Hey, morals make no logical sense in the first place as they limit the chances of survival. So why should and argument over morals make much more sense? Hell your argument has cuase brain hemmorages across the globe, especially in people with common sense.
Is eating meat morally wrong
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
An interesting shift in burden: At the core, the only argument "in favor of eating meat" is the argument that there is no compelling argument to stop in such a fashion as to consciously choose an evolutionary path based solely on moral conjecture.
The only reason I actually care what people eat is that it tells me a number of subjectively significant things about them. Do I want to share a bed, and therefore all necessary related human odors, with someone whose diet consists entirely of chorizo, eggs, garlic, and onions? No. Does this make that other person immoral? Hardly. Can I be friendly, honest, &c., with a vegan? The only reason why not rests with the individual vegan: if I'm going to hear sixteen brands of crap every time I eat something with an animal product in it, well, frankly it makes it rather hard to enjoy that person's presence.
But as to harm and consent ... would we trade what we have built as a civilization so that we might enjoy the benefits of harming no living thing? There are, indeed, Buddhist groups that find other ways to sustain themselves. Perhaps we might invoke that "natural death only" notion, like Huxley reported in India, when the farmers would "inadvertently" cause the animals to get sick so that one might keel over and the family could enjoy a square meal for once in however long. What part of the human endeavor does not harm animals without consent? Does not rely on it? Like so many other things that we have the luxury of debating (e.g. child labor, gender politics, war, &c.) we have achieved this height through the behavior we demonize. Take episode #5F11 of The Simpsons ("Das Bus"): if you were stranded on an island, would you pass on the pond full of fish in order to lick slime off the rocks because you feel sympathy for the fish?
Consciousness and suffering? How many extreme comparisons might I invoke here? Perhaps I should pass on the morality of raping Terry Schiavo. Yes, I should definitely pass on the morality of raping Terry Schiavo. Hmmm ... what would work in place of considering the morality of raping Terry Schiavo? Perhaps I might invoke a recent episode of a television show (House, M.D.) in which a doctor caused a coma patient to have a migraine in order to test the efficacy of an anti-migraine treatment. Conscious? No. Suffering? No. Consent? Impossible. Ethical or moral? No, and no.
If I ate humanely-gassed and unconscious insects instead of slaughtered bovine, would that make a whole lot of difference to the issue?
Standard: human vegetarianism is the deviation, the choice; why should we change humanity for a merely moralistic assertion? Choosing evolution for progress' sake is an unwise but often attractive venture; check in with "Japanime" in order to see that issue played from time to time. (Schoolchildren dreaming of cyber-enhancements replacing their eyes or ears the way you or I might have dreamt of a car, a gun, a guitar, or a particular cheerleader on the varsity squad?) Choosing evolution for the sake of naked moralism seems nearly laughable.
It is enough to think about humanity "playing God" with genes in order to customize our offspring, raise homonunculi, or grow a tomato that is more than a tomato. Yes, it seems an easier proposition to put vaccinations into the food source, but that's only because of artificial economic constraints. Almost everything we engineer in order to make life easier and more accessible to humanity affects our evolutionary passage. But to strike after something so fundamental--the diet of a species--for merely moralistic reasons seems nearly immoral.
If we ever find a "gay gene", should it be turned off to suit the morals of others? Can you imagine a potential epitaph of humanity, written by the hand of some alien anthropologist? "Too good, and too stupid, to eat before they starved to death. Extinction is better than they deserved."
And remember, if sex was just about orgasms, we'd all just masturbate. If there is no "intangible" value in either sex or companionship for you, then I understand perfectly your disregard for satisfaction or satiation. But I don't think that's necessarily true of you. If we were all alone and never felt happy and secure, what would we get done as individuals or a species?
As many political conservatives demonstrate, it is easy enough to form a politically-effective argument while overlooking--intentionally or by accident of who they are--the intangibilities of the human experience. I would ask you to neither underestimate nor ridicule the less-tangible factors. After all, it is in the face of dispassionate philistinism that so many people's hopes for humanity begin to crumble.
Okay, having reviewed the seemingly-endless litany from a couple of topics ....
The List:
Did I miss anything tremendously important to the argument against eating meat?
The Nutshell:
The Bias:
The Crux:
The Curious:
The Response:
Again I refer to my remarks in a discussion of the morality of morals: "The morality of having morals ... can be determined by the objective foundation, the functional result, and the fundamental simplicity of the morals asserted."
For instance, I do not eat lamb or veal. This is not generally a moral assertion for me, but rather one of practicality. Slaughtering lambs seems particularly low-yield, although in a moment at Chang's Mongolian it occurred to me that, if you're the Mongols, there is a reasonable time to slaughter out lambs, say, right before you break camp. Veal seems absolutely pointless to me. Seriously, it seems a stupid idea in general. there is, of course, a notion that asserts that violence, such as wars between people, are wrong not on any abstract moral grounds, but for the inefficiency of violence in solving issues. My resentment of lamb or veal as fine dining has more to do with notions of high society than abstract morals. Much like my resentment of people who try to look poor while wearing four hundred dollar sweatsuits. ("You're kidding me; the definition of civilization is stupidity?")
Few morals actually meet my standard of propriety. I sincerely doubt your moral assertion against meat could reach that standard. Hell, if God can't, what chance have you or I?
Does the fact of our species count at all in your consideration? No, we need not hold the chicken as an equal to feel sympathy for it. But for heaven's sake, must we muddle with the fact of our species? We are the human species, and while that counts for little in the grand scheme, it counts a lot in being human. We are inefficient, imperfect creatures whose desires and needs reflect those drawbacks. We evolved eating meat, we are equipped for eating meat, and, frankly, while I have one of the worst diets in the civilized world--largely based on meat, and primarily based on animal products--my body responds positively in a way that it does not to vegetable matter. Has your body ever "turned on the switch" for a particular food? Have you ever craved something you've never eaten before, or just yesterday found repugnant? Why do you think that happens? Is one's craving merely petty psychology? What you treat as crude selfishness is often deep-seeded conditioning at the very least. You would have an easier time wrenching the religion out of Pope Benedict than wrenching beef out of my diet. And yet you consider such a condition mere selfishness? What of those who advocate a conscious shift in the evolutionary pattern for mere morals? What kind of compensatory response to self-perceived inadequacy is that? Very typical, actually, and much akin to Benedict and the rest of the Bible-dependent lot.
Consuming meat is the current standard; it is not as if anyone here advocating the continued consumption of meat is asking humanity to do something it has never done before. The vegetarian advocates, however, are treading into territory that is at once pioneering and ultimately arrogant.
After all, though many may write and speak of "animal rights", who considers "animal responsibilities"? On the one hand, when cows show rational contributions to the political discourse, or simply show the capability of voting, I will consider bovine suffrage. May they do better by the vote than we humans have done. Support your right to arm bears. Or, perhaps, more seriously, cats and dogs gained their respect among humans by performing basic tasks for people. Perhaps we can do the same for cattle and chickens.
And while we're on the status of animals, by what standard is eating a chicken remotely comparable to raping a human child? Seriously, in an evolutionary Universe, does the fact of our species count for anything at all?
As to the list:
When I look at a question such as you have asked--"Can you give me ANY ethical argument which justifies killing sentient non-human animals for food, in the ordinary course of life?"--I see a convenient flip in presuppositions. Any ethical argument for the status quo? Given that this status quo was delivered by nature and not cheap politics, I do think the burden is on the argument for change. Especially considering what that change means. This isn't merely anti-miscegenation laws, or tax reform. This is a fundamental facet of human evolution: what we, the species consume.
And that's pretty damn big.
This is not about whether future generations will hate skin colors or not, but something significant in consideration of the species itself. You're talking about a basic function of life, and shaping that to accord with your moral self-satisfaction.
A moral human species is possible, but morals aren't always the feel-good weight people like to swing after one another's hearts and minds.
In the end, it may be that we have to decide how important our passions are. Sure, snuff out what makes us human. At least we can feel good about not eating the fish. Or jacking off. Or going to NASCAR.
The List:
- Nutrients available from vegetarian sources
- Nature of industrial farming
- Baby animals
- Benefits/detriments to human race
- Killing animals for food is unnecessary
- Produce enough non-meat food to feed world
- Do the math (not economical to eat meat)
- Nature of industrial farming
- Baby animals
- Benefits/detriments to human race
- Killing animals for food is unnecessary
- Produce enough non-meat food to feed world
- Do the math (not economical to eat meat)
Did I miss anything tremendously important to the argument against eating meat?
The Nutshell:
- "Eating meat is immoral because it involves killing an innocent animal for no ethically-justifiable reason. Meat eaters eat meat purely for their own pleasure and convenience. An animal can feel pain. There is no reason to think animals do not wish their lives to continue. Moreover, the meat industry's practises in breeding and raising animals mean that by eating meat you are supporting systematic animal cruelty. Most meat animals are bred solely for food, kept in appalling conditions for their brief and unhappy lives, and are killed, often inhumanely."
The Bias:
- Eating meat can only have superficial justification (e.g. "for your pleasure").
The Crux:
- "Can you give me ANY ethical argument which justifies killing sentient non-human animals for food, in the ordinary course of life?"
The Curious:
- Humans and other animals have the same value in terms of the human endeavor.
The Response:
Again I refer to my remarks in a discussion of the morality of morals: "The morality of having morals ... can be determined by the objective foundation, the functional result, and the fundamental simplicity of the morals asserted."
For instance, I do not eat lamb or veal. This is not generally a moral assertion for me, but rather one of practicality. Slaughtering lambs seems particularly low-yield, although in a moment at Chang's Mongolian it occurred to me that, if you're the Mongols, there is a reasonable time to slaughter out lambs, say, right before you break camp. Veal seems absolutely pointless to me. Seriously, it seems a stupid idea in general. there is, of course, a notion that asserts that violence, such as wars between people, are wrong not on any abstract moral grounds, but for the inefficiency of violence in solving issues. My resentment of lamb or veal as fine dining has more to do with notions of high society than abstract morals. Much like my resentment of people who try to look poor while wearing four hundred dollar sweatsuits. ("You're kidding me; the definition of civilization is stupidity?")
Few morals actually meet my standard of propriety. I sincerely doubt your moral assertion against meat could reach that standard. Hell, if God can't, what chance have you or I?
Does the fact of our species count at all in your consideration? No, we need not hold the chicken as an equal to feel sympathy for it. But for heaven's sake, must we muddle with the fact of our species? We are the human species, and while that counts for little in the grand scheme, it counts a lot in being human. We are inefficient, imperfect creatures whose desires and needs reflect those drawbacks. We evolved eating meat, we are equipped for eating meat, and, frankly, while I have one of the worst diets in the civilized world--largely based on meat, and primarily based on animal products--my body responds positively in a way that it does not to vegetable matter. Has your body ever "turned on the switch" for a particular food? Have you ever craved something you've never eaten before, or just yesterday found repugnant? Why do you think that happens? Is one's craving merely petty psychology? What you treat as crude selfishness is often deep-seeded conditioning at the very least. You would have an easier time wrenching the religion out of Pope Benedict than wrenching beef out of my diet. And yet you consider such a condition mere selfishness? What of those who advocate a conscious shift in the evolutionary pattern for mere morals? What kind of compensatory response to self-perceived inadequacy is that? Very typical, actually, and much akin to Benedict and the rest of the Bible-dependent lot.
Consuming meat is the current standard; it is not as if anyone here advocating the continued consumption of meat is asking humanity to do something it has never done before. The vegetarian advocates, however, are treading into territory that is at once pioneering and ultimately arrogant.
After all, though many may write and speak of "animal rights", who considers "animal responsibilities"? On the one hand, when cows show rational contributions to the political discourse, or simply show the capability of voting, I will consider bovine suffrage. May they do better by the vote than we humans have done. Support your right to arm bears. Or, perhaps, more seriously, cats and dogs gained their respect among humans by performing basic tasks for people. Perhaps we can do the same for cattle and chickens.
And while we're on the status of animals, by what standard is eating a chicken remotely comparable to raping a human child? Seriously, in an evolutionary Universe, does the fact of our species count for anything at all?
As to the list:
- Nutrients available elsewhere - And? Eating is not, at least for most people, a dispassionate process. Even when reduced to gruel, people have their preferences. Just because it is available, we are required to take from that source?
- Nature of industrial farming - I think we have a lot more to worry about concerning methods of distribution and allocation of wealth. Capital obsession is much more a threat to human sustenance than carnivorous habits. A capitalist, after all, will sell you the rope to hang him with.
- Baby animals - Efficiency and economy. I tend to think things like lamb and veal are pure egotism, but I could be wrong.
- Unnecessary - Recreational sex is unnecessary, dangerous, and costly to society. And yes, some people do like it to hurt. As to consent? When the cattle are capable of having that discussion, it is welcome.
- Enough non-meat food - Great. I bet we could distribute the non-meat food we already have in much better ways. Again, we come back to methods of distribution and allocation of wealth.
- Do the math - See above. It is possible, when looking at the problems facing humans, to blame the humans and not nature. What, is there not enough land to grow the food? Would that be the land's fault? Not enough animals? Obviously, the animals are to blame? After all, it isn't like humans poison their environment at a ridiculous pace, nor reproduce irresponsibly.
- Nature of industrial farming - I think we have a lot more to worry about concerning methods of distribution and allocation of wealth. Capital obsession is much more a threat to human sustenance than carnivorous habits. A capitalist, after all, will sell you the rope to hang him with.
- Baby animals - Efficiency and economy. I tend to think things like lamb and veal are pure egotism, but I could be wrong.
- Unnecessary - Recreational sex is unnecessary, dangerous, and costly to society. And yes, some people do like it to hurt. As to consent? When the cattle are capable of having that discussion, it is welcome.
- Enough non-meat food - Great. I bet we could distribute the non-meat food we already have in much better ways. Again, we come back to methods of distribution and allocation of wealth.
- Do the math - See above. It is possible, when looking at the problems facing humans, to blame the humans and not nature. What, is there not enough land to grow the food? Would that be the land's fault? Not enough animals? Obviously, the animals are to blame? After all, it isn't like humans poison their environment at a ridiculous pace, nor reproduce irresponsibly.
When I look at a question such as you have asked--"Can you give me ANY ethical argument which justifies killing sentient non-human animals for food, in the ordinary course of life?"--I see a convenient flip in presuppositions. Any ethical argument for the status quo? Given that this status quo was delivered by nature and not cheap politics, I do think the burden is on the argument for change. Especially considering what that change means. This isn't merely anti-miscegenation laws, or tax reform. This is a fundamental facet of human evolution: what we, the species consume.
And that's pretty damn big.
This is not about whether future generations will hate skin colors or not, but something significant in consideration of the species itself. You're talking about a basic function of life, and shaping that to accord with your moral self-satisfaction.
A moral human species is possible, but morals aren't always the feel-good weight people like to swing after one another's hearts and minds.
In the end, it may be that we have to decide how important our passions are. Sure, snuff out what makes us human. At least we can feel good about not eating the fish. Or jacking off. Or going to NASCAR.
Gustav said:
So instead of emaciated junkies lying in the street, we can now recoil at the sight of society's obese, bloated and half-satiated, muttering about the sunshine and their next hypertwinkie.
It's almost a brave new world.
So do I. I mean, that's the plan as I understand it, but one of the things that makes us human is that you don't know exactly what we'll do next. Like "snap bracelets". Those things are immoral, as I understand it, not because children should not be dared to sexual deviations, but because we can inject the fertilized ova directly into waiting bodies.
All in the name of progress. Just like netspeak, or mobile homes.
tiassa:
Taking your second post first...
Correct.
Can you give me a justification which does not ultimately reduce to the pleasure of the eater?
I don't know what you mean by that. I have never argued that humans and animals have the same value. Explain.
Are you saying that the efficiency for you is what matters most? More than the suffering of the animals?
Here, you attempt to introduce an argument from nature, which I have already spent the majority of this thread arguing with TW Scott. I accept that humans evolved as meat-eaters. The amount of meat that ancient humans ate, I suspect, would be far less than that eaten by modern meat-eaters. But that is irrelevant, anyway. It is not true to say that our ancestors were perfect, in a moral or any other sense. There is no a priori reason why we should emulate them. You cannot derive a moral imperative merely from what has been done in the past, since no moral principle supports the general idea that the status quo ought to be maintained.
So, you eat meat because it makes you feel good, and for you that reason overrides the interests of the animals involved. Again, the question is: should your momentary pleasure or convenience be considered more important than the life of an animal?
Again, the fact that you may desire meat does not mean you ought to eat it. You might also desire to murder, or rape, or commit any of a number of crimes. But that doesn't mean you should. Get some self-control, man!
Essentially, yes. Is it anything more than that? You have a choice. Are you so weak that you feel compelled towards the immoral?
The "evolutionary pattern", as I mentioned before, is an abstraction. Our species will evolve, regardless, and we are mere cogs in the wheel. I do not see how you can validly link some kind of moral imperative to evolution. Evolution is amoral.
This also fails as a logical argument. This time, the fallacy is in the appeal to numbers. "If everybody does it, it must be good!". Sorry, but that just doesn't work. The "current standard" is not automatically right.
We already accord basic rights to humans who have no responsibilities. We protect children - even unborn children in certain circumstances. Why not other animals?
Fine. We're not discussing giving cows the vote here. We're talking about letting them live.
By what standard is it different? In both cases, a living, feeling, conscious being suffers. In one case, its life is extinguished. Why is the child so much more important that the chicken is supposedly entitled to no rights at all?
There is a moral principle, sometimes called the Principle of Equal Consideration. It says simply that classes of moral objects (people, animals etc.) ought not to be treated differently unless there is a compelling reason for doing that. Following that principle, the starting point would be to give animals and humans equal rights in all respects, except in those cases where a compelling argument can be made in terms of differing capacities or interests, such as to justify different treatment. If we look at the right to vote, for example, an argument can be made that a cow cannot comprehend the political process to the extent necessary to justify giving it the right to vote, and so denying it that right is reasonable. But when it comes to the right to live unmolested...
We must weigh up people's preferences against the value of the life of the animal.
It is false to say that we ought not to address one wrong just because there are other wrongs which are also unaddressed. There are moral issues to do with allocation of wealth, granted, but that does not mean we can't attend to animal rights as well.
I'm not sure what your point is, here.
Do you imagine that animals freely consent to their own deaths? Is it not obvious that they do not?
Again, I don't see your point.
Set up the burden of proof whichever way you like. I have already given compelling arguments for change. Primary is the unnecessary suffering of the animals. And you weigh that against ... what? That your great grandfather was a meat eater, and so was your grandfather and your father, so you want to follow the family tradition? Which is more important?
Yes. You need to evaluate what harms you cause by eating fish, jacking off or going to NASCAR. Then, weigh those harms against the benefits to yourself and others (beings worthy of moral consideration, like people and animals). What do you conclude?
Taking your second post first...
Correct.
Can you give me a justification which does not ultimately reduce to the pleasure of the eater?
I don't know what you mean by that. I have never argued that humans and animals have the same value. Explain.
Are you saying that the efficiency for you is what matters most? More than the suffering of the animals?
Here, you attempt to introduce an argument from nature, which I have already spent the majority of this thread arguing with TW Scott. I accept that humans evolved as meat-eaters. The amount of meat that ancient humans ate, I suspect, would be far less than that eaten by modern meat-eaters. But that is irrelevant, anyway. It is not true to say that our ancestors were perfect, in a moral or any other sense. There is no a priori reason why we should emulate them. You cannot derive a moral imperative merely from what has been done in the past, since no moral principle supports the general idea that the status quo ought to be maintained.
So, you eat meat because it makes you feel good, and for you that reason overrides the interests of the animals involved. Again, the question is: should your momentary pleasure or convenience be considered more important than the life of an animal?
Again, the fact that you may desire meat does not mean you ought to eat it. You might also desire to murder, or rape, or commit any of a number of crimes. But that doesn't mean you should. Get some self-control, man!
Essentially, yes. Is it anything more than that? You have a choice. Are you so weak that you feel compelled towards the immoral?
The "evolutionary pattern", as I mentioned before, is an abstraction. Our species will evolve, regardless, and we are mere cogs in the wheel. I do not see how you can validly link some kind of moral imperative to evolution. Evolution is amoral.
This also fails as a logical argument. This time, the fallacy is in the appeal to numbers. "If everybody does it, it must be good!". Sorry, but that just doesn't work. The "current standard" is not automatically right.
We already accord basic rights to humans who have no responsibilities. We protect children - even unborn children in certain circumstances. Why not other animals?
Fine. We're not discussing giving cows the vote here. We're talking about letting them live.
By what standard is it different? In both cases, a living, feeling, conscious being suffers. In one case, its life is extinguished. Why is the child so much more important that the chicken is supposedly entitled to no rights at all?
There is a moral principle, sometimes called the Principle of Equal Consideration. It says simply that classes of moral objects (people, animals etc.) ought not to be treated differently unless there is a compelling reason for doing that. Following that principle, the starting point would be to give animals and humans equal rights in all respects, except in those cases where a compelling argument can be made in terms of differing capacities or interests, such as to justify different treatment. If we look at the right to vote, for example, an argument can be made that a cow cannot comprehend the political process to the extent necessary to justify giving it the right to vote, and so denying it that right is reasonable. But when it comes to the right to live unmolested...
We must weigh up people's preferences against the value of the life of the animal.
It is false to say that we ought not to address one wrong just because there are other wrongs which are also unaddressed. There are moral issues to do with allocation of wealth, granted, but that does not mean we can't attend to animal rights as well.
I'm not sure what your point is, here.
Do you imagine that animals freely consent to their own deaths? Is it not obvious that they do not?
Again, I don't see your point.
Set up the burden of proof whichever way you like. I have already given compelling arguments for change. Primary is the unnecessary suffering of the animals. And you weigh that against ... what? That your great grandfather was a meat eater, and so was your grandfather and your father, so you want to follow the family tradition? Which is more important?
Yes. You need to evaluate what harms you cause by eating fish, jacking off or going to NASCAR. Then, weigh those harms against the benefits to yourself and others (beings worthy of moral consideration, like people and animals). What do you conclude?
A few points from your second post...
These considerations are all about you. Why do you discount the interests of the animals involved in eating meat? Do you actually think they have no interests? Or just none worthy of protection?
In a matter of life and death, eating meat may be the only option, and in that case a human interest might, depending on circumstances, outweigh the rights of the eaten animal. But that is not the main thrust of this thread. We're talking about everyday life here.
I wonder why you raise this. I am also interested in why you think this is unethical (I'm not saying it isn't - I just want your reasons).
Yes, I think it would. Don't you?
That depends. What harm is there in a gay gene? Whose interests are being weighed against each other in this case?
Isn't it hypocritical that you lament the ignoring of intangible interests of human beings, while at the same time you blatantly ignore the very tangible interests of non-human animals?
These considerations are all about you. Why do you discount the interests of the animals involved in eating meat? Do you actually think they have no interests? Or just none worthy of protection?
In a matter of life and death, eating meat may be the only option, and in that case a human interest might, depending on circumstances, outweigh the rights of the eaten animal. But that is not the main thrust of this thread. We're talking about everyday life here.
I wonder why you raise this. I am also interested in why you think this is unethical (I'm not saying it isn't - I just want your reasons).
Yes, I think it would. Don't you?
That depends. What harm is there in a gay gene? Whose interests are being weighed against each other in this case?
Isn't it hypocritical that you lament the ignoring of intangible interests of human beings, while at the same time you blatantly ignore the very tangible interests of non-human animals?
James R said:
I see this as the crux as the vegetarian argument. Animals have the same right as people. Them: Would you like someone to do do it to you?
Me: No.
Them: Then don't do it to an animal.
Me: But but but an animal isn't a person!
Them: Barbarian. I bet you rape babies, too.
Me: ???
As Tiassa said, once cows get the vote, give them a voice. Or once the cows get a voice, give them the vote. Or something like that. Yeah, animals have feelings, but they're not feelings that matter. Animals and people are qualitatively different.
The right to live unmolested? I thought that was a privelege, that a select few share. Should we declaw tigers and file down wolves' teeth? They are, after all, molesting those poor ungulates. Prey animals will typically end up eaten. Old moose don't die peacefuly in their sleep, nor are they herded to a painless death before butchering and distribution. Instead, predators tear them apart. They bleed a lot. They live a molested life.
Animals get et. What's the difference if it's us that eats them or some other animal? Don't give me an analogy about my family being raped or my house burgalized. An animal is not my family, it is not a human. You cannot apply your morality to things that lack morality. We can empathize with each other because we share similarities; we're people. We can empathize with animals because we share similarities, and we anthropormorphize to draw parallels between our feelings and those of animals.
But that still doesn't make an animal a human, it doesn't make its suffering actually mean anything. Not that farmed animals have life that bad.
Roman:
Realise that nobody (or at least not me) is arguing that animals ought to have the same rights as humans. The question is: ought they to have any rights at all? Because being killed arbitrarily says to me that they don't have many rights as things stand.
Regarding raping babies, consider. Why do you eat meat? Because you like the taste. Because it makes you feel good. Why do baby-rapers rape babies? Because they like to do it, and it makes them feel good. So, what's the difference? It seems to me that you think the important difference is that the babies happen to belong to the species Home sapiens, while a cow does not. So, perhaps you can explain to me why humans are so special that mere membership of their species gives them special rights that no other animal is entitled to. Or are humans special just because you happen to human?
Whose feelings matter to you, Roman? And why? Are you just another narcissist who cares only about himself, ultimately, or does your consideration of other beings extend beyond yourself? How far does it extend?
The laws of every nation accord basic rights to all human beings. Murder is a crime everywhere. And yet, the murder of animals is not a crime, except under some limited special circumstances. So, can you give a reason for this difference?
Can a tiger or a wolf live on a vegetarian diet? Do they have the mental apparatus necessary to make moral choices? Do you?
Do other animals breed food animals specifically for them to be eaten? Do they inflict cruelty at any time apart from the time of death of the prey? Do they kill solely for fun, as humans do for fur and sport?
Would you care if a newborn child was tortured or killed? It lacks morality.
Is it mere anthropomorphizing, or do you think animals actually have feelings? Do you have any pets? Do you think your pet has desires, likes and dislikes? Or do you think it's all just a projection of your personality?
Again, whose suffering does mean something to you, Roman? Anybody's apart from your own?
Did you read the information provided earlier on factory farming? I guess not.
Realise that nobody (or at least not me) is arguing that animals ought to have the same rights as humans. The question is: ought they to have any rights at all? Because being killed arbitrarily says to me that they don't have many rights as things stand.
Regarding raping babies, consider. Why do you eat meat? Because you like the taste. Because it makes you feel good. Why do baby-rapers rape babies? Because they like to do it, and it makes them feel good. So, what's the difference? It seems to me that you think the important difference is that the babies happen to belong to the species Home sapiens, while a cow does not. So, perhaps you can explain to me why humans are so special that mere membership of their species gives them special rights that no other animal is entitled to. Or are humans special just because you happen to human?
Whose feelings matter to you, Roman? And why? Are you just another narcissist who cares only about himself, ultimately, or does your consideration of other beings extend beyond yourself? How far does it extend?
The laws of every nation accord basic rights to all human beings. Murder is a crime everywhere. And yet, the murder of animals is not a crime, except under some limited special circumstances. So, can you give a reason for this difference?
Can a tiger or a wolf live on a vegetarian diet? Do they have the mental apparatus necessary to make moral choices? Do you?
Do other animals breed food animals specifically for them to be eaten? Do they inflict cruelty at any time apart from the time of death of the prey? Do they kill solely for fun, as humans do for fur and sport?
Would you care if a newborn child was tortured or killed? It lacks morality.
Is it mere anthropomorphizing, or do you think animals actually have feelings? Do you have any pets? Do you think your pet has desires, likes and dislikes? Or do you think it's all just a projection of your personality?
Again, whose suffering does mean something to you, Roman? Anybody's apart from your own?
Did you read the information provided earlier on factory farming? I guess not.
James R said:
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Yes. Cat and dog food is predominantly rice or other grain products with meat flavorings. It would be possible to feed the world's predators on animal-safe products.
Wolves lack the mental faculties to think morally, yes. Or at least, they lack the mental faculties to ponder moral questions. I doubt wolves do much pondering at all. That's why I won't begrudge anyone if they want to hunt wolf. Personally, though, I don't understand the allure of killing wolves. Nice pelts, but the meat tastes funny. I suspect there's some sort of perverse pleasure in denying a predator its power. Fat rednecks really get off on killing far better animals than themselves.
Cats love to toy with their prey. I remember when I was a little kid living in Puerto Rico, and I'd find these big, sweet lizards mauled by house cats. Killed completely for sport, left to die in the sun and the ants. Big cats kill for sport, as well.
When whales get trapped in ice flows up north, the polar bears come and kill them all. Whole pods, far more than the polar bears can eat, just because the polar can.
Well, it is a human. But then, I'm all for abortions. If you feel bad about cows being eaten, do you not feel for the slaughter of millions of innocent, unborn?
Of course they have feelings. They just don't matter as much.
I have now. Those farms are grim. I wonder how the workers deal with all the suffering.
This idea that we're getting in this thread from several posters that humans are entitled to special rights and privileges just because they are members of the human species is really just narrow-minded prejudice.
Let me draw you an analogy.
Before the abolition of slavery in the United States, human beings were divided into two classes. One of those classes of people had a set of rights: a right not to be enslaved, a right to vote, a right to travel freely, to live unmolested, etc. The other class of people had none of those rights.
Sometimes, people would argue the moral issue of whether slaves should have more rights. A few brave souls even dared to suggest that slaves should have the same rights as everybody else, and that slavery ought to be abolished. In response, supporters of slavery argued that slaves weren't really human beings at all. They were "lower". Moreover, slavery had existed throughout history, and everybody did it, so it must be ok, right? Probably, slaves weren't intelligent enough to be able to vote or own property anyway.
Today, the moral circle has widened to the extent that, in most of America most of the time, all human beings are accorded basic rights. It is only another small, logical step, to accord the same basic rights to non-human animals. It would only require that we continue along the same path as was started with the abolition of slavery. It would, however, involve appreciating the current reality that currently animals are our slaves, and that that is unjust. As always, there are many entrenched interests, so many people refuse to even consider this obvious fact.
Another example: universal suffrage. Exactly the same kinds of arguments were made for denying women the vote. Women couldn't be as smart as men - nowhere near smart enough to do something as important as voting, or serving in the political arena. No, the proper place for women was bare-foot and pregnant, doing the dishes in the kitchen, maybe occasionally bringing their "better" husbands the odd beer or two.
Let me draw you an analogy.
Before the abolition of slavery in the United States, human beings were divided into two classes. One of those classes of people had a set of rights: a right not to be enslaved, a right to vote, a right to travel freely, to live unmolested, etc. The other class of people had none of those rights.
Sometimes, people would argue the moral issue of whether slaves should have more rights. A few brave souls even dared to suggest that slaves should have the same rights as everybody else, and that slavery ought to be abolished. In response, supporters of slavery argued that slaves weren't really human beings at all. They were "lower". Moreover, slavery had existed throughout history, and everybody did it, so it must be ok, right? Probably, slaves weren't intelligent enough to be able to vote or own property anyway.
Today, the moral circle has widened to the extent that, in most of America most of the time, all human beings are accorded basic rights. It is only another small, logical step, to accord the same basic rights to non-human animals. It would only require that we continue along the same path as was started with the abolition of slavery. It would, however, involve appreciating the current reality that currently animals are our slaves, and that that is unjust. As always, there are many entrenched interests, so many people refuse to even consider this obvious fact.
Another example: universal suffrage. Exactly the same kinds of arguments were made for denying women the vote. Women couldn't be as smart as men - nowhere near smart enough to do something as important as voting, or serving in the political arena. No, the proper place for women was bare-foot and pregnant, doing the dishes in the kitchen, maybe occasionally bringing their "better" husbands the odd beer or two.
wrong. the point was about devaluing another's existence in order to abuse and exploit. it is deemed inferior and accorded a lesser status. whether it is class of humans or a different species is irrelevant. the arguments and justifications for discrimination are similar. i draw no moral distinction between a leather sofa and a jewish lampshade. both are equally reprehensible.
you suck
i like to stab you with sharp objects and whatnot
"I don’t believe human beings have the ‘right to life.’ That’s a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. (newkirk)"
"Human beings have come to realize that they [are] animals themselves, It can no longer be maintained by anyone but a religious fanatic that man is the special darling of the whole universe, or that other animals were created to provide us with food, or that we have divine authority over them, and divine permission to kill them." (singer)
*bolding mine
you suck
i like to stab you with sharp objects and whatnot
"I don’t believe human beings have the ‘right to life.’ That’s a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. (newkirk)"
"Human beings have come to realize that they [are] animals themselves, It can no longer be maintained by anyone but a religious fanatic that man is the special darling of the whole universe, or that other animals were created to provide us with food, or that we have divine authority over them, and divine permission to kill them." (singer)
*bolding mine
James R:
You are examining this all wrong. I am not denying animal's rights. I am just not giving them any. Something given has no value. If animals want rights they have to stand up and take them. Since humans already have in the past the species is afforded them. They seized the right to raise and slaughter livestock and till the land. They seized the right to be the dominanat species. They also seized the right to protect themselves against deviants. Now is this moral? Absolutely since we dictate morals.
Equating eating meat with raping children (and yes you have implied this) is truly a despicable use of red herring. Eating is a need and choosing to eat beef is not immoral. Sex is a want and choosen to to have it with an unwilling minor is immoral. One the surface this is a double standard, but not if you are capable of deeper multi-level thinking. I'd try to explain it, but if you don't get it you never will. So go ahead and think as you do. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, even as wrong as yours are.
You are examining this all wrong. I am not denying animal's rights. I am just not giving them any. Something given has no value. If animals want rights they have to stand up and take them. Since humans already have in the past the species is afforded them. They seized the right to raise and slaughter livestock and till the land. They seized the right to be the dominanat species. They also seized the right to protect themselves against deviants. Now is this moral? Absolutely since we dictate morals.
Equating eating meat with raping children (and yes you have implied this) is truly a despicable use of red herring. Eating is a need and choosing to eat beef is not immoral. Sex is a want and choosen to to have it with an unwilling minor is immoral. One the surface this is a double standard, but not if you are capable of deeper multi-level thinking. I'd try to explain it, but if you don't get it you never will. So go ahead and think as you do. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, even as wrong as yours are.
Gustav said:
No, trolls are the ones who try to call it a cop out. It has been explained several dozen times already and if you cannot grasp it you are not going to. It's simple. I should not have to talk down to pre kindergarten level just so you get a concept my 4 year old nephew does.
Roman:
You still haven't come up with a good reason why humans are special, and should have rights to life which cows should not.
TW Scott:
I fear that distinction is too subtle for me. Please explain.
Tell that to the next person who gives you a present.
That doesn't sound very Christian of you, TW Scott. (You do claim to be a Christian, do you not?) What happened to protecting the weak, and the meek inheriting the Earth? Why is might equal to right all of a sudden?
Eating meat is a want as much as sex is a want. It is in no way necessary, as I have explained at length. You choose to eat meat, just as you may choose to have sex. You are free to choose not to have sex, or not to eat meat.
While we're on the subject of consent, why is having sex with an unwilling minor wrong, while eating an animal which is unwilling to be eaten ok? Please explain.
Indeed. And it is quite clear that it is you who holds the double standard. Is it not?
It is a pity you can't give any valid reasons why I might be wrong. Have you considered that perhaps it is you who is mistaken?
You still haven't come up with a good reason why humans are special, and should have rights to life which cows should not.
TW Scott:
I fear that distinction is too subtle for me. Please explain.
Tell that to the next person who gives you a present.
That doesn't sound very Christian of you, TW Scott. (You do claim to be a Christian, do you not?) What happened to protecting the weak, and the meek inheriting the Earth? Why is might equal to right all of a sudden?
Eating meat is a want as much as sex is a want. It is in no way necessary, as I have explained at length. You choose to eat meat, just as you may choose to have sex. You are free to choose not to have sex, or not to eat meat.
While we're on the subject of consent, why is having sex with an unwilling minor wrong, while eating an animal which is unwilling to be eaten ok? Please explain.
Indeed. And it is quite clear that it is you who holds the double standard. Is it not?
It is a pity you can't give any valid reasons why I might be wrong. Have you considered that perhaps it is you who is mistaken?
Roman:
I explained the Principle of Equal Consideration above. Unless there is a compelling ethical reason for treating animals differently from humans in this respect, we ought to give their lives the same respect we give human life.
It is not my fault if you do not have the ability to empathise with animals. All I am saying is what is the right thing to do. I can't force you or TW to grow a sense of empathy. I can't force you to spend time with animals, learning about how they actually are, rather than relying on your convenient prejudices that animals are basically grass-munching machines and nothing else. You'll have to do that yourselves. Or, more probably, you won't.
I explained the Principle of Equal Consideration above. Unless there is a compelling ethical reason for treating animals differently from humans in this respect, we ought to give their lives the same respect we give human life.
It is not my fault if you do not have the ability to empathise with animals. All I am saying is what is the right thing to do. I can't force you or TW to grow a sense of empathy. I can't force you to spend time with animals, learning about how they actually are, rather than relying on your convenient prejudices that animals are basically grass-munching machines and nothing else. You'll have to do that yourselves. Or, more probably, you won't.