Is eating meat morally wrong

[Light Travelling]

Humans are capable of defending their right to life and freedom animals are not of course.

But this is rubbish, there are many humans that are not capable of defending themselves from attack by other humans. In fact a relatively small percentage of the world population are capable of defending their right to life and freedom!

And by this logic your moral standard becomes, that it is ok to kill and eat any being that is not capable of defending themselves. Which is clearly untrue as almost everyone has said “killing humans is wrong”.

And why is this issue of not eating humans important. Because it is when we are faced with eating another human that we realise this being is like us. It is subjective and it is sentient, it feels terror and pain like we would if we were to be killed and eaten. When we eat animals we manage a trick of the mind (because the animal looks different) that objectifies the animal and we are able to forget it’s sentience and subjectivity.

I was going to say it is surprising that no one is able to provide a logical reasoned argument for why it is ok to eat the cow animal or the horse animal but not the human animal. But it is actually not surprising at all because there is no logical reasoned argument to be had – just gut feeling and likes and dislikes conditioned from birth. We eat meat because we are born into a society that eats meat, we don’t eat humans because we are born into a society that doesn’t. There is no logic to this apparent moral distinction.

People eat meat because its convenient, and no doubt they will continue to do so, but that doesn’t make it moral.

 

[kazakhan]

But this is rubbish, there are many humans that are not capable of defending themselves from attack by other humans. In fact a relatively small percentage of the world population are capable of defending their right to life and freedom!

And by this logic your moral standard becomes, that it is ok to kill and eat any being that is not capable of defending themselves. Which is clearly untrue as almost everyone has said “killing humans is wrong”.

You're nitpicking I said humans not an individual human. Humans on the whole define their rights and then defend said right. Parents, relatives concerned fellow humans defend the rights of individual humans that are incapable of defending themselves.

And why is this issue of not eating humans important. Because it is when we are faced with eating another human that we realise this being is like us. It is subjective and it is sentient, it feels terror and pain like we would if we were to be killed and eaten. When we eat animals we manage a trick of the mind (because the animal looks different) that objectifies the animal and we are able to forget it’s sentience and subjectivity.

But we generally are not faced with eating humans.

But it is actually not surprising at all because there is no logical reasoned argument to be had – just gut feeling and likes and dislikes conditioned from birth. We eat meat because we are born into a society that eats meat, we don’t eat humans because we are born into a society that doesn’t. There is no logic to this apparent moral distinction.

Is there a need for a logical basis for eating meat?

People eat meat because its convenient, and no doubt they will continue to do so, but that doesn’t make it moral.

Doesn't make it immoral either, and on shall the argument go ad infinitum...

 

[Light Travelling]

Humans on the whole define their rights and then defend said right.
...

Then why the continued atrocites carried out by humans against humans throughout history. Yes humans can generally defend themselves from being eaten by animals, but not from each other.

But we generally are not faced with eating humans.
...

Exactly... which is why we generally dont think about what we are doing when we eat meat.

(most people are not generally faced with killing animals either.)

Is there a need for a logical basis for eating meat?
...

No not for eating meat. .... But there is a need for a logical basis for establishing a moral, which is what is going on in this thread.

 

[James R]

kazakhan:

I doubt you comprehend what you quoted of my post. I did not claim any health benefit to eating meat. Why would I not be well aware of the so called health benefits of a vegetarian diet. There's plenty of clowns such as yourself pointing it out.

Comprehending your position is not difficult. Basically, it's just a repeat of TW Scott's position, which I have already debated at length in this thread.

How would know what I think of my self? You are unbelievably presumptuous. No I do not consider myself a good person but neither do I consider myself bad person.

Unless you're radically different from all the other human beings on earth, I am quite sure that you try to act in a morally consistent manner - i.e. in a way which you think is "good". Am I really being presumptuous by not singling you out for special treatment?

You're kidding right? Have you not implied all humans should refrain from eating meat? I haven't pushed anything I don't care what people eat or don't eat.

It seems to me you care, since you are making a significant effort to diminish the vegetarian moral argument. If you had no interest in the topic, you wouldn't be posting.

Why do you think slavery was abolished in the USA?
...
Got any reasons for this moral imperative, that I haven't already refuted previously in the thread?
...
The reason to convert to my line of thinking, in case you missed it, is that my arguments are cogent and persuasive.
...
Let's start with one - you. Then we can both convert the remaining 5,999,999,998 together.

Etc...

You put these comments forward as evidence of my so-called "zealotry". In fact, all are direct responses to specific points in the discussion I have been having with TW Scott. You have taken them out of context. Briefly:

1. Human and animal slavery have parallels, which I have raised as a valid issue.
2. It is not unreasonable to expect meat eaters to produce a moral argument in favour of meat eating, in a thread in an ethics forum discussing the ethics of eating (or not eating) meat.
3. TW Scott asked why he should become vegetarian, so I told him.
4. TW wanted the whole world to "convert" to vegetarianism before he would consider acting morally. I felt that some light-hearted banter was in order in response. (Can you say "sense of humour", kazakhan?)

I've already said we humans are capable of defending our precieved rights. When the cows take up arms or start whining about their lot in life then I'll reconsider my choice there's always other meat

Children are not capable of defending their rights. Old people are not capable of defending their rights. Oppressed people are often incapable of defending their rights. Your argument is silly. TW Scott made exactly the same argument, and I have responded to him in more detail on this point.

Do you the courtesy eh? You have failed in this regard in a thread of mine among others however I have now caught up.

Please be specific if you have a complaint, kazakhan. Vague references to me offending you in another unspecified thread aren't very helpful.

None. That insects are not sentient but why are they not? Good for you.

What are you talking about? You're not making sense.

Just because you've posted several reasons to not eat meat does mean I should accept it.

That's right. As you quoted previously: "The reason to convert to my line of thinking, in case you missed it, is that my arguments are cogent and persuasive."

Nor am I going to go over each reason as I don't believe there is anything immoral in eating meat. You can reason till your blue in the face but until someone holds a gun to my head I will continue to eat meat.

So, let me summarise your view, as I understand it. You take the "might is right" line, just like TW Scott. If people want rights, they must fight for them and forcibly claim them. The strong owe nothing to the weak, and there are no moral duties. The only rule which matters is: the person with the biggest gun rules.

Is that correct?

 

[James R]

2inquisitive:

Perhaps you can give us some links to scientific studies that support your statement.

The information you quoted from wikipedia supports my statement, as far as I can see.

And please, James R, no more of the crackpot sites with an agenda, such as promoting books and asking for donations.

I would not be surprised if you would consider any sites started by animal liberationalists, or even morally-conscious vegetarians, as "crackpot sites". Since these are obviously likely to contain the most information on the issue we are discussing, you are trying to rule out a lot of the best information to support my argument, for no valid reason I can see. Would you consider meat-industry sites as crackpot, too? Tell me, what kinds of sites would you consider unbiased on this issue?

I find this speculation difficult to believe. Do you actually think the vast majority of people never seriously think about it? Wouldn't THIS statement be more accurate?...'The vast majority of people never seriously consider this a moral question at all.'

If you want to put it that way, that's ok. People don't see eating meat as having any moral implications. Hence, they don't consider the moral issues which in fact do exist.

James R, are you a vegetarian or a vegan? You do realize that fructarians may consider YOU immoral. Some of my neighbors think people who do not attend church regularly are immoral. Isn't morality relative?

As I've said to TW Scott, some morals are more defensible than others.

There is a difference between vegans and vegetarians, certainly, and we could discuss whether the vegan position is superior or not.

Take one issue: is it morally acceptable for humans to eat chicken eggs? A vegetarian might well answer: yes. The chicken which layed the egg is not harmed, and can produce many more eggs. The question of whether it is ok to factory-farm chickens for egg production is a completely different issue, of course. On the other hand, a vegan might say that it is best not to support chicken farming of ANY kind, and therefore we should not support the chicken egg industry. And maybe the vegan argument is correct...

But the difference between vegans and vegetarians is not the main battle here. Here, we are talking about meat-eating vs. not eating meat. The moral lines are much much easier and clearer to draw in this case. Meat eating necessarily involves animal cruelty, in the very act of unnecessary killing if not elsewhere in the process.

 

[john smith]

Take one issue: is it morally acceptable for humans to eat chicken eggs? A vegetarian might well answer: yes. The chicken which layed the egg is not harmed, and can produce many more eggs.

Would you, as a vegetarian answer yes?

The way i see it, is if you are going to talk about not eating meat because of animal cruelty then surely eating eggs would be one and the same as eating meat?

I mean if your eating the egg, your not even giving the chicken a chance to life...and so therefore 'killing' it.

Here, we are talking about meat-eating vs. not eating meat. The moral lines are much much easier and clearer to draw in this case. Meat eating necessarily involves animal cruelty, in the very act of unnecessary killing if not elsewhere in the process.

But surely there are certain nutrients that you can recieve from meat that you can't from vegetables?
Im sure i was once told that vegetarians, especially when they are young and doing all the developing of muscles and such, find it harder to develope as they are not recieving a full range of nutrients.

For example, i have a friend the same age as me who's father is vegatarian, he is the same height and ways roughly 1 stone lighter than me,(i do more wieght exercise than him so this could be part of the cause i suppose) he also seems to be constantly hungry, and whenever he's at mine, mum always makes a big roast or something like that, to feed him up, he always seems to be starving.

I just thought that thats probably related to the vegetarian-meat eating thing.

by all means correct me if im wrong.

:m:

 

[2inquisitive]

James R:

I would not be surprised if you would consider any sites started by animal liberationalists, or even morally-conscious vegetarians, as "crackpot sites". Since these are obviously likely to contain the most information on the issue we are discussing, you are trying to rule out a lot of the best information to support my argument, for no valid reason I can see. Would you consider meat-industry sites as crackpot, too? Tell me, what kinds of sites would you consider unbiased on this issue?

The reason I labeled some of your links 'crackpot' was because their statements were so biased as to distort information for support. Here are some examples from your first link, In These Times:

At one end of the complex sits a giant lagoon that catches the operation’s chemicals, urine, antibiotics and other effluvia. In the narrow strip of land that separates the fencing from the road lie the carcasses of dead cows (a.k.a. “downers”), eyes bugged out, tongues dangling and bellies bloated in the summer heat.

Which chemicals and antibiotics are they speaking of, James R? The only chemicals I can think of would be the kind I clean my floors with, or add to the water I wash my clothes in. Antibiotics used at a feedlot? Feedlots are the places cattle are sent immediately before slaughter for 'fattening'. The cattle are allowed limited mobility in the feedlots and are fed a high-protein diet to marbalize the beef with fat, which tenderizes and improves flavor. NO ANTIBIOTICS are allowed in the animals for a specified period before entering the foodchain. 'Downers' are NOT carcasses of dead cows. Downers are living cattle that are unable to walk on their own, usually from broken bones or old age. The vast majority of 'downers' are old dairy cattle near the end of their lives. A few years ago, a small minority of slaughterhouses might process such cattle (old and/or injured) as ground beef products or pet food. They were never suitable as whole cuts of beef to be sold commercially. The majority of farmers themselves supported banning 'downers' being sold for human consumption, which was passed as a law several years ago.

More to the point, a friend of mine is a farmer. A few years ago, he also began raising cattle to supplement his farming income, which had dropped considerably when the price of soybeans fell. He now has herd of over 1,000 cattle, a family operation. You consider him 'immoral' because his operation is geared to beef cattle production. His cattle have the best of care while under his control, well-fed and treated to veterinary care if needed. Almost all problems are the result of birthing complications. A large part of the herd consists of cows and bulls kept for breeding purposes, producing calves. Yes, most of the calves are sent to feedlots when they grow to sufficient size. The feedlots his are sent to are about 1,000 miles from his farm. There are no local feedlots or commercial slaughterhouses. Usually, a shipment is made about every 3-4 months, by a large truck pulling a large cattle trailor. Why do I bring this up? Because 'downer' cattle are very rare, usually the very old or the newborn with problems. It would not be economically feasable to ship a 'downer' to a slaughterhouse even if it were not against the law. I rode with my friend to a pasture where he had a rare 'downer'. The cow had developed a severe foot infection, making it painful for the cow to stand or walk, so it began to lay in one place all the time. This was an older cow that was part of his breeding stock, near the end of her usefullness as a calf producer. He had already paid a veterinarian to come out to the field to administer care, quite expensive. The vet told him the cow was unlikely to recover because of the severity of the infection and the age of the cow. Twice a day, for over a two week period, my friend transported water and food to containers the cow could reach without getting up. The 'economical' decision would have been to euthanize and bury the old cow when its condition was first known. He happily told me later the cow recovered.

James R, do you believe it is possible to be a compassionate person while engaged in an immoral occupation? Is there any paradox in your mind, or are all things black and white with no middle ground?

 

[john smith]

Is there any paradox in your mind, or are all things black and white with no middle ground?

I'd like to think things were black and white with no middle ground, situations would suddenly become so much easier to deal with.

 

[TW Scott]

I'd like to think things were black and white with no middle ground, situations would suddenly become so much easier to deal with.

Black and white are at the extreme ends of the spectrum and that is what makes things easier to deal with. If everything was either pure good or absolute evil we'd never get a damn thing done.

 

[Tiassa]

If that was true, there'd be no problems of obesity, or addition to alcohol or other drugs. People put all kinds of things into their bodies which are not good for them, and which their bodies do not "demand".

This is one of those times where you have to separate “brain” and “body”. It is a difficult conceptual separation, true. But when you consider the correlation between blood type and diet, for instance … haven’t I covered this already? Why, when the body is presented with multiple foods to digest, does it take up the simple carbohydrates first? What you or I in our minds consider “best” is different from what our bodies consider “best”.

Addiction is largely a brain-centered phenomenon, and has about as much to do with diet as ejaculation. Obesity is, to some degree, an addiction, and yet there is still the issue of how a body processes its fuel: have you not heard the lament, “No diet helps”? Some moderate obesity can be influenced through considerations of blood type and diet, much through exercise. But there are some people who are simply obese, and we have not figured out as a society how best to help them.

Furthermore, I would ask you to clarify something: How do you compare “obesity” and “addiction” to the idea that suddenly, one day, my eyes see spinach, and my body, which has never before appreciated greens, suddenly craves it?

Sounds like addiction to me, eh? I’m “addicted” to spinach? It’s all about pleasure, isn’t it? Just base greed?

Both you and Mountainhare have made this ridiculous comparison, and I have yet to figure out how exactly either of you consider it reasonable.

1. I do not believe you body (as opposed to your mind) "barely tolerates" vegetables.

In addition to a lack of appeal that qualifies as a specific revulsion, everything goes to hell. You can believe what you want, since that is the basis of your moral crusade, but the reality of energy disbursement, gastrointestinal stability, and brain functions all speak, in my experience, against your belief.

Think of hummus, another random thing that has turned on in my life: my body’s response to hummus is considerably more positive than my body’s response to asparagus, carrots, &c. But hummus to me is like Chinese food to others; I can gorge on hummus and be hungry again an hour later. It’s snack food at present.

Of course, maybe it’s addiction. Or just plain greed.

2. I do not believe your "sociofunctional rhythms" are more important than the life of an innocent animal.

Believe what you want, sir. For ‘tis true. My sociofunctional rhythms bear little importance in the grand scheme of things, but so does your moral crusade. In the more immediate, as I’m directly interacting with my brain on a chemical level (e.g. SSRI) it would seem rather quite stupid to do things that increase the frequency of a given brain status when I am trying to diminish said frequency. The next time someone tells me to “get a job”, or to not take an issue so seriously as to let it affect my thought and behavior over a given period, I’ll point them in your direction. The better my sociofunctional rhythms, the greater my contribution to the human endeavor.

3. The moral argument I am making here is not "unfounded". I have given a number of excellent justifications for it.

I have addressed these justifications. Well, I think I have. It seems to me you’re repeating yourself a good deal.

To revisit one of your points:

The extension of this argument to plants is just a distraction. There is no evidence that plants have any kind of consciousness, or any subjective experience of suffering. But, even if there was, that would only provide an argument for not eating at all. It would not provide an argument in favour of eating meat.

I’m restraining myself from transcribing the most part of five pages from Aldous Huxley. Perhaps this debate will leave me no choice in the long run. But to post a portion of it here for you now:

The spectacle of a dying animal affects us painfully; we can see its struggles and, sympathetically, feel something of its pain. The unseen agony of a plant leaves us indifferent. To a being with eyes a million times more sensitive than ours, the struggles of a dying plant would be visible and therefore distressing. Bose’s instrument endows us with this more than microscopical acuteness of vision. The poisoned flower manifestly writhes before us. The last moments are so distressingly like those of a man, that we are shocked by the newly revealed spectacle of them into a hitherto unfelt sympathy.

Sensitive souls, whom a visit to the slaughterhouse has converted to vegetarianism, will be well advised, fi they do not want to have their menu still further reduced, to keep clear of the Bose Institute. After watching the murder of a plant, they will probably want to confine themselves to a strictly mineral diet. But the new self-denial would be as vain as the old. The ostrich, the sword-swallower, the glass-eating fakir are as cannibalistic as the frequenters of chop-houses, take life as fatally as do the vegetarians. Bose’s earlier researches on metals—researches which show that metals respond to stimuli, are subject to fatigue and react to poisons very much as living vegetable and animal organisms do—have deprived the conscientious practitioners of ahisma of their last hope. They must be cannibals, for the simple reason that everything, including the “inanimate” is alive.

This last assertion may seem—such is the strength of inveterate prejudice—absurd and impossible. But a little thought is enough to show that it is, on the contrary, an assertion of what is a priori probable. Life exists. Even the most strict and puritanical physicists are compelled, albeit grudgingly, to admit the horridly disquieting fact. Life exists, manifestly, in a small part of the world we know. How did it get there? There are two possible answers. Either it was, at a given moment, suddenly introduced into a hitherto completely inanimate world from the outside and by a kind of miracle. Or else it was, with consciousness, inherent in the ultimate particles of matter and, from being latent, gradually extrinsicated itself in ever increasingly complicated and perfect forms. In the present state of knowledge—or ignorance, put it how you will—the second answer seems the more likely to be correct. If it is correct, then one might expect that inanimate matter would behave in the same way as does matter which is admittedly animate. Bose has shown that it does. It reacts to stimuli, it suffers fatigue, it can be killed. There is nothing in this that should astonish us. If the conclusion shocks our sense of fitness, that is only due to the fact that we have, through generations, made a habit of regarding matter as something dead; a lump that can be moved, and whose only real attribute is extension. Motion and extension are easily measured and can be subjected to mathematical treatment. Life, especially in its higher, conscious forms, cannot. To deny life to matter and concentrate only on its measurable qualities was a sound policy that paid by results. No wonder we made a habit of it. Habits easily become a part of us. We take them for granted, as we take for granted our hands and feet, the sun, falling downstairs instead of up, colours and sounds. To break a physical habit may be as painful as an amputation; to question the usefulness of an old-established habit of thought is felt to be an outrage, an indecency, a horrible sacrilege. (Aldous Huxley, Jesting Pilate)​

And yes, I did leave out a bit; to describe the writhing of the poisoned plant would be extraneous and aesthetic, and it is aesthetics to which I protest in your classification. There is, in the United States, an advert that ran on television last year, depicting a Buddhist convert expressing his horror when he realized that he was blowing his nose into a tissue that “kills flu germs”. Notwithstanding that I consider viruses to lack life, I think the point is still relevant. There are sects that have retreated to a mineral diet because they specifically reject such aesthetics as your standard. Life is life, and, as Huxley notes, to classify according to perceptions of suffering (e.g. “consciousness”, or “subjective experience of suffering”) is merely an aesthetic standard. I would go so far as to call it dishonest in terms of moral proselytizing.

The old-established “habit” of eating meat is evolutionary. Your established habit of aesthetics is merely aesthetic. And in life, as in art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

As to other considerations at hand, such as industrial farming, as I have stated before: “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.”

In the meantime, I still wonder about the flip in presuppositions: your reduction of nature’s ways to petty excuses requires some justification on your part that doesn’t involve fallacious appeals to emotion and aesthetics.

And don’t worry about time passed; I intend to take some time with other aspects of this discussion, in part because of time constraints, but also because I’m trying to figure out just how seriously I should take your continued fanaticism. You might as well be preaching the Gospels of Christ for all the validity you’re managing.

 

[Tiassa]

No, I do not presume moral parity. If the question was: "Which is morally worse - killing and eating a human being, or killing and eating a cow?" then my answer might well be "Killing the human is worse." But here we are considering the question "What is morally worse - killing and eating a cow, or raping a human being?" I do not have to assign "moral parity" to animals and humans to answer that question. In fact, the question may be quite difficult to answer, since it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. However, I have limited myself to comparing only one particular aspect of killing and eating an animal to raping a human - i.e. the aspect of the act which has to do with a selfish desire on the part of a human being. Thus, I have not been trying to establish any kind of general moral parity between these acts, but only a specific similarity, which I think is valid.

This is an absurd comparison. To the one, rape is more complex than that, and, to the other, unlike the act of barbecuing and eating a hamburger, a human engaged in rape has considerably more contact with the victim than first-world carnivores have with the animals they consume. Furthermore, it is a cheap appeal to emotion: Oh, won’t somebody please think about the children! To see someone arguing the similarity between eating meat and raping fellow humans turn around and cite Godwin’s law is just a bit ridiculous.

Nonetheless, you think your comparison is valid. Very well. It is. But only in your own Universe. Attempting to pass that standard on to other people, dressing aesthetic standards as morals, is a bit like spreading the disease. Irrationality is dangerous, especially when made contagious by the diligent efforts of people such as yourself.

Sorry, but you're wrong. First and foremost, organisms seek their own survival, not survival of their species. Often, the fiercest competition is not between different species, but among members of the same species, competing for the same resources.

Have you ever seen wildlife video of the walruses beating a retreat back to the water? Why, if it is about the individual, would an old walrus cow, well past her prime, place herself as sacrificial bait so that the young could escape to the water ahead of the herd? Furthermore, would you side with the feminist I once read who described flies as committing rape? Consider the weaker fly who stages a quick attack against a stronger fly for the purpose of picking up the stronger’s food scent in order to lure a mate. Deception, yes. Rape? Well, let me guess: with the flies, it’s all about greed, isn’t it? Those greedy flies and their complex social calculations.

If the flies had communal knowledge, then perhaps the weaker members of the species could override their primal urges, but it ain’t about pleasure, and it ain’t about the individual.

Ask the salmon about the individual.

 

[James R]

john smith:

The way i see it, is if you are going to talk about not eating meat because of animal cruelty then surely eating eggs would be one and the same as eating meat?

I mean if your eating the egg, your not even giving the chicken a chance to life...and so therefore 'killing' it.

I do not eat fertilised eggs. The eggs I eat have zero chance of developing into a chicken.

Besides, I do not regard an unborn chicken in an egg as worthy of equal moral consideration to a fully-grown live chicken. A potential chicken is not a chicken.

But surely there are certain nutrients that you can recieve from meat that you can't from vegetables?

Not that I am aware of.

Im sure i was once told that vegetarians, especially when they are young and doing all the developing of muscles and such, find it harder to develope as they are not recieving a full range of nutrients.

It may be harder for vegetarians to balance their diet, but it isn't impossible, clearly. They just need to be more careful.

For example, i have a friend the same age as me who's father is vegatarian, he is the same height and ways roughly 1 stone lighter than me,(i do more wieght exercise than him so this could be part of the cause i suppose) he also seems to be constantly hungry, and whenever he's at mine, mum always makes a big roast or something like that, to feed him up, he always seems to be starving.

Easily fixed. He probably isn't eating enough, and should eat more.

 

[James R]

2inquisitive:

The sources I cited were cited for the specific information I quoted. I do not necessarily endorse everything on those sites, and I admit I haven't read everything on them, either. That was not necessary to make the point I wanted to make.

Feedlots are the places cattle are sent immediately before slaughter for 'fattening'. The cattle are allowed limited mobility in the feedlots and are fed a high-protein diet to marbalize the beef with fat, which tenderizes and improves flavor. NO ANTIBIOTICS are allowed in the animals for a specified period before entering the foodchain.

The relevant question here is: are antibiotics used in feedlots? Yes or no?

More to the point, a friend of mine is a farmer. A few years ago, he also began raising cattle to supplement his farming income, which had dropped considerably when the price of soybeans fell. He now has herd of over 1,000 cattle, a family operation. You consider him 'immoral' because his operation is geared to beef cattle production. His cattle have the best of care while under his control, well-fed and treated to veterinary care if needed. Almost all problems are the result of birthing complications. A large part of the herd consists of cows and bulls kept for breeding purposes, producing calves. Yes, most of the calves are sent to feedlots when they grow to sufficient size. The feedlots his are sent to are about 1,000 miles from his farm. There are no local feedlots or commercial slaughterhouses. Usually, a shipment is made about every 3-4 months, by a large truck pulling a large cattle trailor. Why do I bring this up? Because 'downer' cattle are very rare, usually the very old or the newborn with problems. It would not be economically feasable to ship a 'downer' to a slaughterhouse even if it were not against the law. I rode with my friend to a pasture where he had a rare 'downer'. The cow had developed a severe foot infection, making it painful for the cow to stand or walk, so it began to lay in one place all the time. This was an older cow that was part of his breeding stock, near the end of her usefullness as a calf producer. He had already paid a veterinarian to come out to the field to administer care, quite expensive. The vet told him the cow was unlikely to recover because of the severity of the infection and the age of the cow. Twice a day, for over a two week period, my friend transported water and food to containers the cow could reach without getting up. The 'economical' decision would have been to euthanize and bury the old cow when its condition was first known. He happily told me later the cow recovered.

I applaud your farmer friend for taking care of his cattle. However, the fact remains that he is supporting the existence of an immoral industry which ultimately treats animals as nothing more than the means to an end, and values them almost solely in terms of their economic value to human beings.

James R, do you believe it is possible to be a compassionate person while engaged in an immoral occupation?

Yes. It seems your friend is compassionate, but his compassion only extends so far. He probably thinks his culpability is reduced because he treats his animals well while they are alive - and he may be right. But the end result is the same - animals are killed for no ethically-justifiable reason. You can rationalise it all you like, and try to make up for it as best you can, but at some point you need to start addressing the ultimate reality.

Is there any paradox in your mind, or are all things black and white with no middle ground?

It should be clear to anybody who has read this thread that there are very few moral issues I regard as black and white. You and others have attempted to paint my position as such, but it is not, and I think I have made that clear.

On the other hand, consider: what ground has been given in this discussion by the meat lovers?

 

[James R]

tiassa:

You mention that I keep repeating myself, and I agree. I have been forced to keep repeating myself in this thread, since the people I am arguing with (yourself included) choose to ignore the points I raise and the objections I raise to your arguments, instead pretending that your position has not been refuted and that you haven't been given certain information by me.

For example, my discussion with TW Scott would be reduced by half or more if he would acknowledge the lack of cogency of the naturalistic argument. But he keeps repeating the same mantra, despite its faults having been clearly displayed a number of times.

Regarding whether your body knows best for what food you want, I don't think it is important to take that argument any further. Let us accept that you desire certain foods (including meat) for whatever reason - physical or psychological, or (more likely) some combination of the two. Then, the question becomes: given that you can obtain your desired food, should you eat it? It is at this point that the moral question arises.

Again, I reiterate that what is "natural" is not necessarily morally good. Therefore, that you crave meat does not mean it is right for you to eat it.

As to your other points:

The better my sociofunctional rhythms, the greater my contribution to the human endeavor.

I regard the lives of animals as more important that the mundane "human endeavors" which you consider take moral precedence.

Now, we move to the issue of plant suffering. I disagree with Aldous Huxley on several issues, which I can go into in more detail if you wish. I do not accept him as an authority who can decide this moral issue for us.

He seems to be arguing that all matter is somehow "alive", and therefore if we are to give moral consideration to a cow we ought also give it to a rock. That view would not be shared by many people, I think you will find, and frankly I doubt that you share it, either. The suffering he talks of for a plant or a piece of steel is fairly obviously of a fundamentally different kind from the suffering of an animal or a human being. Moreover, I regard the consciousness of the animal to be a relevant consideration. Do you wish to argue that rocks are conscious now?

As for life being sacred, I do not regard all life as of equal value. Thus, causing harm to an insect, in my view, should receive less condemnation than causing harm to a cow, for example. Killing bacteria may attract almost no culpability on the part of a human being, depending on the circumstances.

The old-established “habit” of eating meat is evolutionary. Your established habit of aesthetics is merely aesthetic.

I evolved to have my moral views. Where does that leave us?

As to other considerations at hand, such as industrial farming, as I have stated before: “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.”

Again, I have to repeat myself. This is not an either-or situation where we can't start to address one moral wrong until all the others are dealt with. We can multi-task.

In the meantime, I still wonder about the flip in presuppositions: your reduction of nature’s ways to petty excuses requires some justification on your part that doesn’t involve fallacious appeals to emotion and aesthetics.

"Nature's ways" may well be that all humans become vegetarian at some time in the future (maybe tomorrow). Who are you to say?

I’m trying to figure out just how seriously I should take your continued fanaticism. You might as well be preaching the Gospels of Christ for all the validity you’re managing.

Another one throwing around the "fanaticism" label? *yawn* Attempting to diminish me as a person doesn't diminish the force of my argument.

This is an absurd comparison. To the one, rape is more complex than that, and, to the other, unlike the act of barbecuing and eating a hamburger, a human engaged in rape has considerably more contact with the victim than first-world carnivores have with the animals they consume.

Eating something is a fairly intimate contact, if you ask me. In fact, taking something in and making it part of your own body ... it doesn't get much more intimate than that.

Furthermore, it is a cheap appeal to emotion: Oh, won’t somebody please think about the children! To see someone arguing the similarity between eating meat and raping fellow humans turn around and cite Godwin’s law is just a bit ridiculous.

Again, I need to repeat myself. My point is that the desire to rape is no different from the desire to eat meat. Both are desires which require a choice of action: to rape, or not to rape. To eat, or not to eat. The potential rapist can choose not to rape. The potential meat eater can choose not to eat meat. Both decisions have moral implications.

I am drawing no parallels apart from that.

Nonetheless, you think your comparison is valid. Very well. It is. But only in your own Universe. Attempting to pass that standard on to other people, dressing aesthetic standards as morals, is a bit like spreading the disease. Irrationality is dangerous, especially when made contagious by the diligent efforts of people such as yourself.

Again, this is nothing better than an ad hominem attack. "People such as yourself" indeed. Rather than addressing my actual argument, you try to belittle the messenger. Why?

Sorry, but you're wrong. First and foremost, organisms seek their own survival, not survival of their species. Often, the fiercest competition is not between different species, but among members of the same species, competing for the same resources.

Have you ever seen wildlife video of the walruses beating a retreat back to the water? Why, if it is about the individual, would an old walrus cow, well past her prime, place herself as sacrificial bait so that the young could escape to the water ahead of the herd?

Because by doing so she is attempting to ensure the continuation and expansion of her own genetic line, via her own offspring. She is past reproductive age; her calves aren't. If she saves them, they can go on to breed and pass on her genes.

Furthermore, would you side with the feminist I once read who described flies as committing rape? Consider the weaker fly who stages a quick attack against a stronger fly for the purpose of picking up the stronger’s food scent in order to lure a mate. Deception, yes. Rape? Well, let me guess: with the flies, it’s all about greed, isn’t it? Those greedy flies and their complex social calculations.

Using the term "rape" in this context is anthropomorphising to an extent that might be unwarranted, don't you think?

If the flies had communal knowledge, then perhaps the weaker members of the species could override their primal urges, but it ain’t about pleasure, and it ain’t about the individual.

Ask the salmon about the individual.

What about the salmon?

 

[2inquisitive]

James R,

I do not necessarily endorse everything on those sites, and I admit I haven't read everything on them, either.

HeHe, sorry James R, but that sounds like someone on Physics & Math you chastise for the same type of links!

The relevant question here is: are antibiotics used in feedlots? Yes or no?

Here is the information I found. I could not find numbers for the exact amounts of antibiotics used at different feedlots. I know some do not use feed that contains antibotics, only pure corn. I know Bill (my friend) and his father researched the various feedlots, and chose one they felt offered the highest quality finished product. That was part of the reason the feedlot is so distant from their farm. Bill's father bought a part interest in the feedlot. I did hear a conversation between Bill and his father discussing the records on a particular steer that had been sent to the feedlot earlier. A potential buyer had called Bill's father wanting to know if the steer had ever had antibotics given to it. They keep records of which steers recieve antibotics for any reason, such as an infection or anything. They told the caller that the steer had never recieved antibotics while in their care, but they bought the steer as a calf weighing xx pounds, so couldn't confirm if it had been given antibiotics as a small calf. Their cattle are ear-tagged with a number so health records can be kept on individual bovines. As mentioned before, disease is rare in their animals, but sometimes newborn calves can get a respiratory infection in cold weather. Bill has an older cattle trailor located behind his house where brings any sick or malnourshed calves for care. Like humans,some cows are better mothers than others. Some cows lavish attention on their calves, keeping near them at all times. Some will seem to forget about their calves, heading across a large pasture to feed at a better spot, leaving their calves behind. Bill has to sometimes bring the ignored calves to his trailor to hand-feed with a bottle until the calf is old enough to eat solid food and grass.

Sorry, getting off-track, but here is a link you really should read James R. It pulls no punches, but clears up some misunderstanding about the cattle industry. A cut and paste concerning the antibiotics:

But also by technology. To keep one of those feedlots operating efficiently, you have to give antibiotics to the cattle. A lot has to be done to keep the animal healthy, right?

The efficiencies really have come together in a very beautiful way in the cattle feedlot industry, in that cattle feeders, from the first, have embraced the idea that they could learn from Ph.D. nutritionists and were willing to learn how they might feed the cattle more efficiently from licensed veterinarians. Consulting veterinarians are really very much the norm in the industry, and animal health has been a tremendous driver ... partly because of the efficiencies, and partly because people in the industry have a genuine concern for the animals themselves. They want them to be healthy. They want them to fare well, to prosper. Partly because it's in their economic interest, but partly because you really are dealing with living, breathing animals. And people in the industries tend to think of them individually as animals that need to be cared for.

Recently in the news, we've heard about the enormous use of antibiotics within these confined feeding operations and the potential problems of that. First of all, why are antibiotics used in a feedlot?
Antibiotics have been used historically in a variety of ways in feedlots. And I think the way that has become controversial and is virtually eliminated now from the industry is that certain antibiotics at very low levels tend to be a growth promotant for the animal. That phenomenon was sort of accidentally discovered, I think, and used at low-grade, feed-grade levels to promote growth in the animals.

The concern is that low-levels of antibiotics will, by some theories -- and I think there's certainly some logic behind it -- cause bacteria to become immune to those antibiotics -- and that might be passed on to humans by consuming the beef. I don't think there's any scientific evidence to corroborate that, but it's not an illogical theory. So the feed-grade use of antibiotics has been radically curtailed over the last number of years.

The other use of antibiotics is to treat specific illnesses in the animal. I don't think there's much controversy on that. ...


But you don't believe that the low sub-therapeutic antibiotic feeding to increase weight is problematic, in terms of developing antibiotic resistance?
On the contrary. I believe that's a legitimate theory. It's a theory that has not been proven. But I think there's enough danger that it could be [and] that we should be very, very careful in using sub-therapeutic level of antibiotics.

How much are antibiotics used in feedlots today for weight gain?

I think you'd find that the use for weight gain had dramatically been reduced. ... I don't think it's been eliminated. But I think the use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics is continuing to be restricted. And I think we'll find that more and more -- certainly in our company -- the use of antibiotics indiscriminately for any reasons has been virtually eliminated.


How can we show that? Because actually even getting the figures to how much of the antibiotics are used in the feed has been extremely difficult. There are no good numbers on it.

I'm not sure I know the answer to that. I know what my experience is. I know what our company's experience is. And I know what my conversations with others in the industry would indicate. There's a real concern that we want to act responsibly. We should act responsibly. And I think the industry is very quickly coming to that realization. ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/interviews/haw.html

 

[2inquisitive]

James R,

It should be clear to anybody who has read this thread that there are very few moral issues I regard as black and white. You and others have attempted to paint my position as such, but it is not, and I think I have made that clear.

In the same post, you state:

But the end result is the same - animals are killed for no ethically-justifiable reason. You can rationalise it all you like, and try to make up for it as best you can, but at some point you need to start addressing the ultimate reality.

That seems like a black and white position to me. I haven't tried to 'paint' you in any manner, James R. You state your position yourself. Now, how are you trying to 'paint' me? As an immorale meat-eater that condones the mis-treatment of animals? Remember my question about feeding meat products to our pets? Do you justify humans killing animals to feed pets, pets that are kept for our pleasure?

Suppose your wishes came true, the killing of animals for food was suddenly outlawed. What happens to the livelyhood of those in the fishing and meat industry? Can those people afford to feed and care for their families? Could people such as Bill afford to plant rye-grass and care for his cattle with a reduced income? They would be a tremendous expense if no income were derived from the sale of some. These are not dairy cattle, he couldn't give them away because of the expense involved in their upkeep. Is it better for the beef cattle to slowly starve to death, or should he kill and bury them all, instead of selling a percentage as he now does?

 

[Tiassa]

Aesthetics

I have been forced to keep repeating myself in this thread, since the people I am arguing with (yourself included) choose to ignore the points I raise and the objections I raise to your arguments, instead pretending that your position has not been refuted and that you haven't been given certain information by me.

I can’t speak for the others, but it would seem that you consider my failure to agree with your points a choice to ignore them. Quite obviously, I disagree. Or am I just ignoring your point again?

Regarding whether your body knows best for what food you want, I don't think it is important to take that argument any further.

Very well. If you say so.

Then, the question becomes: given that you can obtain your desired food, should you eat it? It is at this point that the moral question arises.

Or the question becomes, given that you can obtain a moral position, should you advance it as a societal rule?

The question of should I eat a food should not be governed by aesthetics dressed as morals.

Or is that just ignoring your point again?

Again, I reiterate that what is "natural" is not necessarily morally good. Therefore, that you crave meat does not mean it is right for you to eat it.

And that you reduce this to simple “cravings” does not constitute a rational foundation for a moral assertion. No, natural does not automatically imply moral propriety, but you’re going to have to come up with something more substantial than aesthetics.

I regard the lives of animals as more important that the mundane "human endeavors" which you consider take moral precedence.

Good for you. But the term is endeavor, in the singular. The “human endeavor” relates to the progress of humanity as a species in its environment, that is, the Universe.

Now, we move to the issue of plant suffering. I disagree with Aldous Huxley on several issues, which I can go into in more detail if you wish. I do not accept him as an authority who can decide this moral issue for us.

Then it’s good he has not attempted to do so. You need to stop ducking the issue as you do:

He seems to be arguing that all matter is somehow "alive", and therefore if we are to give moral consideration to a cow we ought also give it to a rock. That view would not be shared by many people, I think you will find, and frankly I doubt that you share it, either.

You ignore the primary issue in order to nitpick what really is irrelevant. The issue is aesthetics. Your restriction to nervous systems and experiences of suffering is exactly what he notes: “The spectacle of a dying animal affects us painfully; we can see its struggles and, sympathetically, feel something of its pain.”

Think, for a moment, of me. Yes, me. I am, religiously, a very poor witch, but as many know, it is the last religion I attempted to follow. Still with me from that period are a number of sentiments: When I pluck a fruit from the tree, or an herb from the garden, I thank the tree or herb; I thank it for its sacrifice. When I drive a spade into untended earth, I apologize to the planet and thank it for whatever service said hole will perform. (I don’t go digging holes just for the hell of it.) When I rake the moss out of my lawn, &c., &c.

There is an amusing story from many years ago, now, over a decade, in which I happened to reflexively swipe at an insect that landed on my face. I recoiled in horror when I realized I had just killed a ladybird beetle, which creatures are sacred according to my personal standards. My girlfriend at the time (not the one I have lamented at Sciforums) was extremely puzzled when I broke out my witchly gear and set about performing a semi-ritualistic burial for the bug under a cherry tree. She had no sense of reverence on this one, despite being a god-fearing apocalyptic millenarian Catholic. By coincidence, my best friend Johan arrived at that point, and not getting an answer at the front door, came ‘round back looking for me. He inquired as to what was going on, and my girlfriend explained to him that I was burying a freaking ladybug. He thought for all of a second and a half, and then told me, “I have my bag in the car. Just a minute.” And so he returned with his own magick gear and proceeded to help me with the burial. This left my girlfriend in a state of culture shock. Johan’s girlfriend simply told her to deal with it; we got weirder than that on occasion.

The point is that life is life. Only the rocks live forever, and no, that’s not true anyway. And no, I don’t yet hold rocks and such in the same stead as living matter. But I don’t seek to kill spiders in my presence anymore, but transplant them so that they “find no harm of thee or me”. I’d rather not tromp on the ants. I’d rather put the occasional worm on the sidewalk back where it can find soil.

That Huxley (or, say, Douglas Adams) shows some wisdom on the subject does not close the issue for me, but rather helps me understand its parameters. And that is what I had hoped Huxley would do for you. However, as you seem predisposed to a moralistic dualism in this case, I find it rather difficult to communicate with you. Perhaps that’s why you feel I’m ignoring your points.

As for life being sacred, I do not regard all life as of equal value.

The simplicity of such a statement explains much. Equal value in such a context has little to do with the sacred. How many people would die for a symbol or a myth? In the United States, when we hear someone ranting about flag-burning, we are sometimes given to wonder what is so important about a piece of cloth that one would kill and die for it.

, causing harm to an insect, in my view, should receive less condemnation than causing harm to a cow, for example. Killing bacteria may attract almost no culpability on the part of a human being, depending on the circumstances.

Depending on the circumstances? Culpability? That’s an issue worth exploring someday. We attempt genocide, albeit foolishly, in fighting disease. My inclination away from antibiotics is, on the one hand, incomplete, and, to the other, less relevant to the morals of genocide as it is to my consideration of what the drugs do to me. Is that just me being selfish and ignoring your point again?

I evolved to have my moral views. Where does that leave us?

With you standing on aesthetic sympathies as the basis for a moral assertion; or, rather, with your argument on a flimsy foundation.

Again, I have to repeat myself. This is not an either-or situation where we can't start to address one moral wrong until all the others are dealt with. We can multi-task.

Moral absolutes and multi-tasking … I hear you, and I admit it’s worth a chuckle.

Yes we can multi-task; but as I see it, treading water—e.g. “swimming” and “staying in place”—is not multi-tasking.

"Nature's ways" may well be that all humans become vegetarian at some time in the future (maybe tomorrow). Who are you to say?

Now you’re ignoring my points. Economics, as I’ve said, will probably force the situation before mere “morals”. And besides, if that’s what nature intends, aesthetics is a poor reason to reach that outcome.

Another one throwing around the "fanaticism" label? *yawn* Attempting to diminish me as a person doesn't diminish the force of my argument.

While I can’t speak for the quality of other people’s arguments, the simple fact is that much of the resistance you’re encountering does have something to do with your general rudeness. Eating meat equals rape, and such. Such irrationality does nothing to augment anyone’s respect for your argument.

Eating something is a fairly intimate contact, if you ask me. In fact, taking something in and making it part of your own body ... it doesn't get much more intimate than that.

What about passing it out the other end?

More to come, later.

 

[Tiassa]

Again, this is nothing better than an ad hominem attack. "People such as yourself" indeed. Rather than addressing my actual argument, you try to belittle the messenger. Why?

Belittling? Moralization requires a moralist to moralize. Morals, as oft-recognized at Sciforums, generally are too inflexible or irrational. This is the case we have here. But people appealing to "morality" when they are, in reality, pleading for an aesthetic standard--people who do what you are doing in this topic--are the ones who make irrationality contagious.

You're the one who's complaining that people who disagree with you are ignoring you. You complain that people who disagree with you are simply greedy. You compare eating meat to raping a human. Belittling? Try addressing the argument instead of the messengers.

Because by doing so she is attempting to ensure the continuation and expansion of her own genetic line, via her own offspring. She is past reproductive age; her calves aren't. If she saves them, they can go on to breed and pass on her genes.

Ah. So one who doesn't worry about itself is merely worrying about itself. I see.

Using the term "rape" in this context is anthropomorphising to an extent that might be unwarranted, don't you think?

No more so than the moral parity you're refusing to acknowledge.

What about the salmon?

They better have the best orgasms on the planet. After all, they die for it. I mean, think about it: yes, I suppose a salmon is acting selfishly in fulfilling its purpose in life, but that purpose extends well beyond the individual salmon. Swim upstream, beat youurself to death against the rocks, spend your load, and die. Sheerly individualistic?

 

[James R]

2inquisitive:

Suppose your wishes came true, the killing of animals for food was suddenly outlawed. What happens to the livelyhood of those in the fishing and meat industry? Can those people afford to feed and care for their families?

They would obviously need to change occupations. So did slave owners when slavery was abolished.

Could people such as Bill afford to plant rye-grass and care for his cattle with a reduced income?

Would he have the same number of cattle if he wasn't producing them for meat?

They would be a tremendous expense if no income were derived from the sale of some. These are not dairy cattle, he couldn't give them away because of the expense involved in their upkeep. Is it better for the beef cattle to slowly starve to death, or should he kill and bury them all, instead of selling a percentage as he now does?

I suggest that the sale of all the equipment at the abatoirs could be used to support the existing cattle as they live out the rest of their lives comfortably. What do you think?

Come on, 2inquisitive. These arguments are silly.

 

[James R]

tiassa:

As far as I can see, you're now arguing only one substantive point. You are asserting that my moral argument is not an argument about ethics at all, but rather one about "aesthetics".

Aethetics is all about what is or is not beautiful, as you know. How this relates to my argument that it is morally reprehensible to kill sentient, conscious beings for no good reason is beyond me, I'm afraid. Unless you want to argue that I regard people who act morally as beautiful, and those who do not as ugly, perhaps.

Will the world be a more beautiful place if people stop eating meat? Not in the sense that "aesthetics" is commonly applied. In a morally righteous, feelgood kind of way, it might be, but that doesn't mean the basis of my argument is aesthetics. The basis of my argument is ethics.

Or the question becomes, given that you can obtain a moral position, should you advance it as a societal rule?

Of course you should. To hold a moral view and yet to think that others should not hold the same view would be strange indeed, would it not? Can you think of any examples?

The question of should I eat a food should not be governed by aesthetics dressed as morals.

Or is that just ignoring your point again?

I think you need to explain why you are mistaking my moral argument for an aesthetic one.

The “human endeavor” relates to the progress of humanity as a species in its environment, that is, the Universe.

I do not believe in the progress of humanity at any cost. Some prices are too high to pay.

The point is that life is life. Only the rocks live forever, and no, that’s not true anyway. And no, I don’t yet hold rocks and such in the same stead as living matter. But I don’t seek to kill spiders in my presence anymore, but transplant them so that they “find no harm of thee or me”. I’d rather not tromp on the ants. I’d rather put the occasional worm on the sidewalk back where it can find soil.

But you're happy to kill a cow and eat it. Why?

That Huxley (or, say, Douglas Adams) shows some wisdom on the subject does not close the issue for me, but rather helps me understand its parameters. And that is what I had hoped Huxley would do for you. However, as you seem predisposed to a moralistic dualism in this case, I find it rather difficult to communicate with you. Perhaps that’s why you feel I’m ignoring your points.

Perhaps so. Please explain why you think I have a "moralistic dualism". Then I might understand your point.

How many people would die for a symbol or a myth? In the United States, when we hear someone ranting about flag-burning, we are sometimes given to wonder what is so important about a piece of cloth that one would kill and die for it.

I don't see the relevance of this.

Culpability? That’s an issue worth exploring someday. We attempt genocide, albeit foolishly, in fighting disease. My inclination away from antibiotics is, on the one hand, incomplete, and, to the other, less relevant to the morals of genocide as it is to my consideration of what the drugs do to me. Is that just me being selfish and ignoring your point again?

I don't know how this relates to my point, as you understand it. As to the issue of selfishness, you are consistent in that your prime concern here is the effects of your actions on yourself, rather than on things outside yourself. Your attitude to meat-eating is the same. To me, it shows a narrowness in your circle of consideration. It seems to me that you are concerned about a cow, let's say, only to the extent that it affects you, and for no other reason. Things that are beyond your direct and immediate control therefore take a very low precedence for you. Of course, I might be wrong.

While I can’t speak for the quality of other people’s arguments, the simple fact is that much of the resistance you’re encountering does have something to do with your general rudeness. Eating meat equals rape, and such. Such irrationality does nothing to augment anyone’s respect for your argument.

My "general rudeness". Hmmm... Have I offended you in some way, other than by disagreeing with your stance? Be specific. This sounds like an echo of TW Scott's petulance.

You're the one who's complaining that people who disagree with you are ignoring you. You complain that people who disagree with you are simply greedy. You compare eating meat to raping a human. Belittling? Try addressing the argument instead of the messengers.

On the contrary, you were the one complaining that I was repeating myself. I simply told you why I felt it necessary to repeat myself. Nor am I complaining about the greed of the meat-eaters. I am simply pointing out their greed to them. I'm not surprised when they get defensive about that. Nobody likes having their faults pointed out.

I have already dealt with the rape thing above. Do you have any further questions regarding my point there, or can we drop that now?

Because by doing so she is attempting to ensure the continuation and expansion of her own genetic line, via her own offspring. She is past reproductive age; her calves aren't. If she saves them, they can go on to breed and pass on her genes.

Ah. So one who doesn't worry about itself is merely worrying about itself. I see.

This is more complex than you suppose. Talk about instinctual actions and conscious desires, if you like. When the female walrus protects her offspring, I am sure that at the time, in her walrusy brain, she thinks she is doing so because of some kind of walrusy "love", or something. However, her natural impulse to protect them also has a perfectly logical genetic basis. You need to go to the next level, beyond immediate conscious choices and ask questions such as "Why does the walrus love her offspring?"

What about the salmon?

They better have the best orgasms on the planet. After all, they die for it. I mean, think about it: yes, I suppose a salmon is acting selfishly in fulfilling its purpose in life, but that purpose extends well beyond the individual salmon. Swim upstream, beat youurself to death against the rocks, spend your load, and die. Sheerly individualistic?

In intent, or in result?