tiassa:
I will now respond to some of the details in your recent post. Let's start with the brief summary you wrote for zion.
JamesR and I disagree on all counts. He believes plants don’t suffer or feel pain; I assert the difference ‘twixt animal and plant is a matter of sympathy and aesthetics. He makes much of an animal’s suffering in cultivation and slaughter, and I consider the greatest portion of that question a matter of economics and not selfish pleasure. Lastly, he attributes a walrus cow’s defense of herd offspring as a matter of love; while my jury is still out on the complexities and nuances of love in such a case, love among humans owes much to irrationality determined by chemical processes.
This is a reasonable summary. Let me re-emphasize my position:
1. Plants do not suffer in any sense that we normally define "suffering". (see above).
2. This is a moral issue, not an economic one. It might be profitable to kill animals and sell their carcasses so meat-eaters can enjoy themselves, but you need to look at the end result as well as all the intermediate steps.
Why is it economical? Because the demand for meat exists? Why does the demand exist? I have addressed that question in detail, previously.
3. Regarding walruses, I think you're oversimplifying. I have said there are complex reasons why animals defend their young, but what they
feel as they do so is a somewhat different question. Similarly, there may be many ultimate reasons for you to act one way or another in any situation, tied up in your genes, your personal history, the environment in which you find yourself, your personal goals etc. Not all of those reasons will come up in any conscious explanation you give when asked "Why did you do that?" Much is hidden in a response such as "I felt like doing that." or "I felt I had to do that."
Much of it has to do, in the end, with the Principle of Equal Consideration (cited by JamesR) and the fact of our species (cited by me). My counterpoint to Equal Consideration is that we seem to be elevating the animals above the humans, while JamesR’s counterpoint to the fact of our species is that species is an abstraction, and apparently doesn’t count for much in our considerations.
I am puzzled as to where you think the "Equal" went in the term "Equal Consideration". If we elevated animals "above" humans, that would surely be "preferential consideration". And similarly if we elevated humans above animals (which is the current status quo).
----
Now, at the risk of being accused of skipping important points, I will respond to your detailed posts.
So, are we, as in you and I, being immoral in even having this debate via computers which are products of that immoral, barbaric Western cultural heritage? And it's not just the Western, I know. But familiarity serves well enough.
Should we be more like those rare mystics, then?
This is a distraction. I'm working within a framework of a Western ethical tradition here. Features that are shared (or not) with other traditions don't concern me at this point.
When you use phrases like "pure selfish pleasure", you're being irrational and rather quite rude. Nonetheless, is that a right endowed by nature or by convention?
A right is a human recognition of an interest worthy of protection by moral, and often legal, sanctions. Interests may be endowed by nature. Rights are endowed by convention.
And yet you'll eat plants because you believe they don't suffer. They do. But it's not a suffering you're familiar with; you do not recognize it in part because its manifestations are rather subtle. As Huxley explained: if you could perceive with your naked eye the sufferings of the plant, such a distinction between plant and animal cannot be made. The difference, the reason you don't advocate for the plants, is aesthetic. That it is a response to what you can perceive and construct a projected sympathy with, such as with death and animals, and, of course, the wretched conditions of economic provision, makes this issue rather aesthetic.
As I said above, I consider the absence of mental states in plants to be a morally significant dividing line to draw between plants and animals. I really can't say anything more than that on this point, and I have little interest in our going around this circle yet again.
Can I take it that your view is that plants suffering is morally equivalent to animal suffering, and be done with it? Or are you saying that all suffering is only an "aesthetic perception", and is therefore never morally significant? Or what?
What is the compelling reason to destroy billions of bacteria? Might it be a personal or species bias? Is bias a compelling reason to set aside equal consideration?
Like plants, bacteria do not possess mental states. Moreover, in some cases where they are killed they directly threaten our lives. If it's us or them, I vote for us. But that's not the case when it comes to eating meat - 99% of the time, anyway.
Does the fact of your species mean nothing to you?
I don't know what you mean by this question. What "fact"? And why should it mean something to me in the current context?
Certain preferences toward our own species are very important in keeping us, both individually and collectively, alive.
A preference for meat over vegetables is not one of those.
We could always manifest the Principle of Equal Consideration by committing species-wide suicide; at least that way, our unfair toll against nature would be finite.
Yes, but I don't think many people would be willing to make that particular choice. I wouldn't, for one.
Political: Self-termination ought to be at the discretion of the individual. The moral principle here is that each person has only their own experience, and they owe no part of it to anyone; observable conditions suggest that we are unable to consent to our birth, and while I do not oppose the efforts to change a suicidal's mind, I find it morally unjustifiable that suicide should be against the law.
Existential: Every act of creation requires destruction. Less dramatically, and perhaps a tad more originally, Existence causes changes of state in an environment. The moral principle here is considerably more complex, as manifestations change depending on the classification of existence one makes. Basically, we are supposed to be somewhat aware of the changes we cause, but we cannot devote our entire existence to such examination.
Existential: Nature is not extraneous. The answers to obscure questions of "Why?" are of the utmost. Why did God make the Universe as such? Couldn't a loving God make a universe without these horrible things? Such questions have puzzled Christians and their infidel critics for ages, but what of more natural considerations? The question "Why are we here?" pertains to the essential question of "What role do we play in the order of the Universe?" What are these ten fingers and toes for? What about this brain? What condition of nature demands this form of existence? Some think such life is an impossible rarity. I tend to think it is a statistical necessity. But even that belief doesn't explain to me what constitutes necessity. The black and white moral directive is to use these tools. But for what?
Are these examples of aesthetic considerations, or moral ones?
And given your rejection of species as an abstraction, I would not dare speculate on why you keep raising arguments that demand moral parity between humans and other animals. Are children really so insignificant in your outlook? Is the fact of your humanity so unimportant to you? Do you not understand that humans are compelled by nature to want to reproduce? People have uses for children that don't involve eating them alive? Aren't you being a little absurd on that point?
If species is an abstraction, then it is perfectly consistent to demand moral parity between humans and non-human animals, isn't it?
What gave you the impression that I consider children insignificant? I can't see where that came from. Unless you're saying that I should elevate human children to an especially privileged moral level? If that's what you are advocating, then I will need some reasons (see Principle of Equal Consideration, again).
Whether children are important in general terms, or whether my humanity is important to me seem to have no direct relation as to whether I should or should not eat meat. Maybe I'm missing your point again.
Your improvement would be moralistic, aesthetic. The reduction, as I've explained, is the narrowing of our food spectrum.
There is often a price to be paid for acting morally. Protecting the environment is more expensive than simply exploiting it. Paying for food instead of shop lifting incurs higher costs for the individual in the short term. Similarly, if conversion to vegetarianism leads to a human incapacity to eat meat 100000 years from now, that doesn't particularly worry me.
If cows weren't good food, they'd probably be extinct by now.
No. There are many wild cattle, even today.
What double standard? Imagine there's a hurricane and the dike breaks. Am I being immoral if I save a human child and not a young calf? Maybe I should ferry that rat over there to safety?
Not necessarily. But if you could save the calf AND the child, what then? Would it then be immoral NOT to save the calf, in your opinion? Or wouldn't it matter either way? Or would it only matter if the calf was of economic value to you?
For that matter, what if one chose not to save the child, or the calf or the rat? Would it be immoral to watch the child drown? Would it be immoral to watch the calf drown? Would one be worse than the other? Why?
------
What follows is a section where you quote previous posts of mine and assert that I have been inconsistent in my statements. I do not consider it necessary to defend myself in any great detail on these matters, since it appears most of the problems have arisen from misinterpretation on your part.
Briefly...
1. I did not perceive Huxley's comments as an assertion of moral authority.
So were you just dodging the issue, then?
No. I addressed Huxley's comments in detail in a later post.
5. I have not cast rape as "about mere pleasure". That is a straw man.
If you say so:
- 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. (#1041466)
- 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. (#1045231)
- Now consider the right not to be eaten for the pure selfish pleasure of another animal. (#1047275)
That last one does in fact come from the post I'm responding to, but I don't think you would be so ridiculous as to claim that's the first time you've made meat consumption about pleasure. Or do I really have to go that far back through the topic to prove it to you?
Nothing you have quoted from me supports your claim that I regard rape as solely about the pleasure of the rapist, so I am correct that this is a straw man. In case there is any residual confusion, my view is that rape is not solely about pleasure.
On the other hand, the fact that rape is not solely about pleasure does not imply that there is no pleasure involved in rape.
But my main point in this comparison was not one about pleasure, but about selfish desires taking precedence over competing interests of other people, or animals in the case of meat eating. I don't think I really need to re-emphasize that point.
More complaint? Is nothing any more complex than "pure selfish pleasure"?
Need I say "straw man" again?
Ever think that maybe moralism is about "pure selfish pleasure"? At least, the way you're going about it? Really, has it ever occurred to you? I have tried to explain to you about the "pleasure" of eating; you insist it is something much more simple. I have tried to explain to you about baseless morals, and you still assert yourself from an arbitrary a priori.
I doubt you actually believe that morality is nothing more than an individual pecadillo. ... On the other hand, given that moral relativism is the current vogue, especially in the United States, perhaps you do believe that. There's another thread running on absolute vs. relative morality, where we can discuss this if you wish. Suffice it to say that the basis of my position in this thread is not "arbitrary". To the contrary, it is based on a principle which has proven its utility in moral philosophy, as it applies to many situations.
Take your next point about Huxley: is your view of what he discussed really so narrow? Why? Furthermore, your standard of what constitutes viable suffering is demonstrably irrational. Would you really claim that what you see with the naked eye is all that is real? What you hear with your own two ears is the only sound in the Universe? Would you? I don't think you would.
Huxley's point is simple enough (at least, what I've seen of it). I disagree with his attempted redefinition of "suffering", which I have explained in previous posts.
Your assertion that I only regard as real things I see with the naked eye etc. is not based on anything I have said, and is essentially another straw man.
How do you determine "the good of the species" in advance, tiassa?
I wouldn't know. What about you? Or do you just not consider it important, as long as you get to feel better about yourself in having set a moral standard for humanity?
I don't consider it important in the present context to try to determine "the good of the species". Why? Because I don't believe it is possible to answer what is in the best long-term interests of the human species regarding meat eating. Nor do I think we have to decide. Let's suck it and see. We can always change later, if necessary. It won't be long until we can alter human physiology in any way we want - certainly we'll be able to do that long before we lose the capacity to eat meat due to evolution. But this pie-in-the-sky stuff just isn't important here and now.
How do you determine the good of the species in advance, that you would advocate an evolutionary outcome deliberately according to a moral assertion based in aesthetics?
Suppose vegetarianism ultimately turns out to be "bad for the species". Who knows? But I can say with certainty, here and now, that it will be good for the cattle and sheep and chicken species. It is only because you put humans on a pedestal that only the good of the human species matters to you, regardless of the evils done to other species.
That a plant's experience of pain or suffering does not focus on a central nervous system does not mean such an experience does not exist.
No. And just because I can't physically lay eggs doesn't mean you shouldn't defend my right to lay eggs if I want to. If I have a deeply felt belief that I should be allowed to lay eggs, then I guess that is as good as actually being able to lay eggs.
Maybe we ought to redefine "egg layers" to include male human beings.
Ok, ignore all this. It's silly, isn't it? But so is the assertion that plants feel pain.
There are some things to consider about an animal's "suffering". Is 5%, or 6.6% too high a number? Perhaps.
You're aware, of course, that you've slipped into talking about animal welfare again, as opposed to animal rights. From an animal rights perspective, even "humane killing" is wrong. In fact, "humane killing" in the context of the meat industry is an obvious oxymoron to animal liberationists. That's not to say that cruel killing isn't even worse, of course.
To simply moralize against meat consumption circumvents the more realistic option of addressing the problems of our economic demands. Moral vegetarianism implemented among humanity only solves the problem of one's sentimentality toward animals. In such a case, animals apparently take precedent over humans, since human suffering remains, and its causes go unaddressed. What is the compelling reason, under the Principle of Equal Consideration, for discriminating against humanity in such a manner?
Let me see if I understand this argument. You're saying killing animals for meat is acceptable because it has economic benefits? I don't need to repeat again that moral acceptabity does not follow from economics, do I?
And stopping the killing of meat animals means animals "take precedence over humans"? No. It means only that we've finally come to the point where we recognise that animals share some of the most basic rights all humans have. Does it mean that animal rights takes precedence over the longing of some humans to enjoy eating their meat? Yes, obviously. Does ceasing to eat meat mean that humans will suffer? No, there's no obvious connection there.
And "discrimination"? No. We'd be ending the discrimination.
We're obviously on completely different pages here. I have difficulty adjusting my mindset enough to even begin to understand how you justify this kind of reasoning to yourself.
You will find, when considering the issue rationally, that preferred slaughter methods are aware of stress put on animals.
I'm well aware of that. Failing to achieve action on animal rights, I fully support action to improve animal welfare. Any positive steps in the right direction are better than nothing.
Is a walrus' love any more rational than human love?
I'm sure it isn't.
And yes, I'm well aware of oxytocin and it's role in falling in love, and so on.
Again, I'm confused as to your point in bringing these things up.
Like I said, it would be great to see brain imagery of a walrus experiencing a love effect. But I suppose the walruses are just selfish and greedy, right? Is it at all possible, according to your outlook, that human or walrus intent, or the intentions of any species, might fail to account rationally for all the effects an action or condition causes or contributes to in the Universe?
I have never claimed that conscious intent was the explanation of all behaviours. Where are you going with this? Is this just a subtle way of repeating your argument that "My body knows what it needs, and it needs meat!"?
[slavery etc.] It is the same with your reduction of meat consumption to pure, selfish pleasure, or greed. You demonize those who disagree with you so that you do not feel obliged to consider the validity of their experiences and understandings. It's an escape that seems convenient, but has proven historically problematic.
My position is that, at its base, people eat meat because they want to. They like the taste. They were brought up in a social environment in which meat eating was acceptable, expected, and often the only offered option. Moreover, they are, on the whole, unaware of the moral implications of their actions in this regard.
So far, so good. But what of people who become aware of the moral issues, and yet continue to eat meat? They
know they are doing the wrong thing, and it is at this point that it becomes justifiable to condemn their actions on moral grounds.
Why do people continue to act immorally when they know it is wrong? There is only a limited set of reasons, and those reasons do include selfishness and greed.
Nature can assert itself in many ways; I don’t eat whales or dolphins because I respect their intelligence. I don’t eat horses because they are capable of communicating with humans. I don’t eat elephants because, frankly, have you ever seen elephants paint? They create art; hardly a tooth-and-nail standard. Yet, if that was all there was to eat, I wouldn’t let myself starve. And I certainly wouldn’t resort to cannibalism if there was a horse or elephant or whale to be had. As the actor said to his horse in Bergman’s Seventh Seal, “Pity I don’t eat grass. Maybe you can teach me.”
Just as I apparently don't appreciate the "suffering" of plants, it seems you don't appreciate the intelligence of cattle, the art of sheep, and so on. I can only comment that it seems you give a greater level of consideration to beings which are more similar to you, rather than appreciating difference and recognising intrinsic value. And strangely, this seems inconsistent with your argument about plant sentience.
Now you’re pushing moral parity between cows and humans. You could make the same case for pets as you do slaves. I anxiously await your advocacy on behalf of either the ownership of slaves or the equality and rights of pets.
Do you consider pet ownership as akin to slave ownership? Or could it be that pet ownership is more akin to the guardianship of a human child?
Can you see any differences between owning a pet and owning a cow you intend to sell to the butcher? I can. There are some very obvious ones.
When the cattle are functionally equal to humans, they will be regarded as equals.
Fine.
Cows are functionally equal to humans in their capacity to feel pain and to wish their lives to continue and in their desire not to be eaten.
So, will you now regard them as equal in that respect? Or must we wait until they start playing chess, too?