Offensive PETA ad / Animal ethics?

[Kennyc]

i didn't stop eating meat because of the taste, or even because i think eating meat is wrong per se. i just don't like the way we go about it. i like most of the fake meat i've tried. i use it in traditional recipes that require meat, like lasagna, chili, chicken enchiladas. i like the morningstar sausage patties too with waffles.

that stuff's not really very good for you though.

What's for Thanksgiving?

ToFuRKY?

 

[The Esotericist]

In the USA we have a very inconsistent, schizophrenic patchwork of attitudes about "cruelty to animals."

In most jurisdictions in this country it is not illegal to kill a dog (or no more than a misdemeanor with a small fine), the one species we love the most, the one that has been our most loyal companion for twelve thousand years, the one that more Westerners have as companions than any other. Yet it is illegal to kill an individual of an "endangered species," even a predator that presents a real risk to livestock, pets, children, or even adults, unless it's actually caught in an attack.

So our schizophrenia about merely harming animals is understandable! There are lots of laws on the books in every state, county and city, prohibiting various sorts of "inhumane" treatment of animals. Yet the exceptions are rampant. If a species is classified as "vermin," you can do just about anything you want so long as it ends up dead. And "vermin" are not just mice, gophers, foxes, cougars, coyotes and rattlesnakes. The category includes some of the animals we find most lovable--as long as they're not invading our own home--such as raccoons, squirrels and even chipmunks! (Good ol' Chip 'n' Dale are burrowing rodents who will dig tunnels under your house until the foundation collapses.) You can snare these critters in traps that would make your children cry at the sight of 'em. Squash their heads, smash their internal organs, bleed them to death, or just never empty the trap until they starve to death or die of pain.

And that's nothing compared to what "factory farmers" do to the animals they keep alive to make food for us! It's state-of-the-art for laying hens, milk cows, and meat animals to be crammed into cages so small they can't turn around, lie down, or even really move at all. Stacked on top of each other so their urine and feces cascades down on one another. California, my home state, was the first to pass a new law requiring the conditions to be slightly improved for any animal whose flesh, eggs or milk is going to be sold in the state. And that was done by popular initiative, you'd never catch the legislature going against the will of one of the state's major industries. (Despite the urban stereotype of California, the vast majority of our land is farm, forest and desert.)

"Puppy mills" are just as bad. Their breeding dogs are kept in conditions that are almost identical to those for food animals. Missouri is America's puppy mill headquarters and their population recently launched a campaign against the industry. You know the American Kennel Club, that charming, venerable old outfit that puts on all the great dog shows, manages the registry of pedigrees, and pontificates about all things canine? They happily register dogs from puppy mills, a major source of their income. But they're opposed to us "backyard breeders" whose dogs sleep in our beds and watch TV with us, and who also do a much better job of managing our gene pool and fighting genetic problems like dysplasia, pancreas disorders, prolapsed eyelids, and the steady shortening of the average canine lifespan from about 16 in my childhood to more like 10 today.

All of this is legal, in every state in the country (with the exceptions noted). Yet if you leave your dog in your car on a warm day, with the windows cracked plenty wide and giant unspillable bowls of water, the cops will break into your car, take him to the pound (where he'll be treated so much better!) and fine you.

So, to answer the question of what you should do if you see someone else being cruel to an animal, all I can say is that this is going to be one of those defining moments in your life that helps you figure out who you are. There may be absolutely no rules about whether what you see is right or wrong, and if there are, there's a real good chance that they may be illogical and lean the wrong way!

You have to do what you believe is right, my friend. And if there are consequences, you have to accept them.

America is a crazy place, but the craziness, theoretically, makes us stronger.

What would you do if you saw someone being cruel to a child? Ponder that for a while, and maybe it will help you achieve some clarity. Back in the 1950s, if an adult saw somebody else whacking the bejeezus out of his own kid for doing something which he apparently thought was really naughty, he would just look the other way, or walk right past and ignore it. Today, at least three onlookers would call the cops.

Dogs, cats, bears and other domestic and wild animals don't have it so easy.

And as an unrepentant carnivore, I must in good conscience add that America's meat-intensive diet only makes this issue even more of a muddle. Why is it okay to kill an animal because you want to eat it, but not to hurt an animal because you're angry at it?

I'm sure some day humans will stop eating meat. And I'm relieved to know that I'll be dead before that happens. Sorry for the inconsistency, folks, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.

F*ckin' Aces man, way to keep it real. If you don't ascend and come back, you will definitely be a vegetarian in the next go around man.

GOLD STAR. You rock. :cheers:

 

[James R]

Ah, quadraphonics, my friendly stalker. Always a pleasure to hear more from you.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

Actually, the reaction is "killing animals is moral, whereas killing humans is not." I do not justify breeding and slaughtering animals for food because it is somehow outside of morality. I consider it explicitly moral - it is an honor to be a part of the food chain, an honor for us to eat animals, and an honor for them to be eaten by us. The immorality is in mistreating animals, or taking their sacrifice for granted.

You think it's an honour to be bred solely for the purpose of consumption by another animal? I guess you imagine that your rightful place in the rich tapestry of life is to have all cows and chickens bow down and thank you every time you have one of them slaughtered to satisfy your appetites. quadraphonics: King of the Beasts. Master of all he surveys! And oh so moral and righteous!

Praise him. Praise him!

Do your views apply equally to breeding other humans for your consumption, too? I assume not. Because humans are special and "above" the cows and chickens. Is that correct? If so, tell me why. Why are you King of the Beasts, and Entitled, quadraphonics?

Animals are worthy of playing an invaluable role as food - they deserve respect, good treatment, and gratitude for the sustenance they provide and its advancement of our species.

What do you think their position would be on the matter, if they could tell you?

Or do you think that the fact that they cannot tell you justifies your position?

If the roles were reversed, would you be happy with the status quo? If not, why not?

Cows like the one pictured in the ad are fattened, at considerable expense, and shielded from strenuous labor and stress.

How much do you know about factory farming? Do you think it's all hunky dory for the animals?

Take battery hens, for example. Any cruelty there, do you think, or do you think that, by and large, the majority of battery hens live good lives and ought to be thankful for the conditions they are raised in?

I thought I'd already made it clear that I reject moral equivalence between humans and animals. So why would applying my arguments to humans bother me? Treating humans as animals is wrong. Treating animals as animals is not. There is a salient difference between the two categories.

What is the salient difference?

Are you aware that humans are animals? I'm sure a smart guy like you knows that.

So, what is this salient difference you speak of that justifies treating non-human animals as mere property, while giving human beings rights such as a right not to be arbitrarily bred and killed for consumption?

But let's pursue this analogy a bit further - the proposed solution to this "slavery" is not the same one as the solution to actual human slavery. We aren't countenancing setting food animals free, but rather eliminating them entirely.

Are "we"? Maybe if you want to know what I'm countenancing, then rather than setting up more straw men you could ... like ... ask me.

Would you say that preventing black people from reproducing, and thereby making them more-or-less extinct, would have been preferable to continued slavery? Because that's what you propose we do with all those chickens, cows, pigs, etc. - instead of breeding, raising and slaughtering them, we'll just prevent them all from even existing in the first place.

Are you always this disingenous? I believe I have discussed this very point with you before, yet here you are ascribing to me a position that I have never expressed.

In other words, you have erected another straw man. You've knocked it down, and off you go with a smug smile congratulating yourself on a job well done.

Are you consciously aware of your alteration of my position, or is this how you remember it from our previous conversations?

Also, it's one thing to push this distortion onto others in the hope that they'll buy it as the argument that I actually put to you, but it's quite another for you to imagine that I'm dumb enough not to notice, or not to pull you up on it. I was there during our previous discussion, remember?

What I have suggested is that if equal consideration applies to all species, then why is it only wrong to instrumentalize and kill species with nervous systems similar to our own?

Please precis your memory of the point about nervous systems, because here again I sense that you either didn't grasp the actual argument, or have retrospectively edited your memory of it so that it has become a straw-man that is easy for you to demolish in your own mind.

Maybe there is some way to reject speciesism and have equal consideration tell you that's it's okay to kill organisms that don't have a nervous system comparable to yours. But I'm not seeing it...

Hint: you don't do it on the basis of the type of nervous system (or lack on one).

Would you like me to explain it to you again? Or you could go back and read the last time I told you. But let me know if you need help.

The right not to suffer is one right. The right not to be treated as property able to be arbitrarily killed at whim is a different right, but an equally valid one. Understand?

Obviously I do...

Then why make the kind of silly statement that I responded to with my comment? You're a strange one, quadraphonics.

I'm speaking to the arguments that you yourself have made, claiming to justify a vegetarian diet on the basis of equal consideration and associated rejection of speciesism.

Well, in part you are. But then again you've misrepresented and/or mentally revised at least two of those arguments already in this single response.

It seems that you agree that these are insufficient to justify the killing of plants for food - and that the consideration of suffering (i.e., welfare) must be introduced to justify your diet.

I don't think you've grasped the Principle of Equal Consideration yet. I can explain it again to you if you like. Just let me know.

In which case, the stuff about equal consideration and rights is spurious - it's just a repackaging of animal welfare, exaggerated for rhetorical effect. And so their inclusion looks a lot like a dishonorable attempt to sex up your rhetoric - all the better to club people over the head with. Likewise the commonplace restriction of consideration to animals, in which context that stuff looks a lot stronger (since the troublesome question of why plant life is devalued is avoided at the outset).

Now I know you don't understand the principle.

Lastly, telling people that they ought to go learn stuff for themselves is, in this context, obtuse. You (and PETA) are advocates for a fringe position - you can either make your case, or resign yourself to irrelevancy.

They have. I have.

It's not my fault if you want to keep rationalising to yourself and knocking down your straw men. At least I tried. Some people are too set in their ways. Some people just aren't that moral, or are morally inconsistent. Some people are wilfully blind. And some just don't grasp the relevant arguments. And so it goes.

 

[James R]

In the end it is just one group of people trying to force,coerce and shame another group of people inot accepting their opinion as fact.

You again! Hi TW Scott!

Long time no see. You disappear from the forum for months on end, but you come running back at the first whiff of an argument about vegetarianism.

Still feeling guilty, deep down?

 

[James R]

Having replied to the substance of quadraphonics' post, let's see what's left. Hmm... there's the sniping, of course.

... you can continue acting like a condescending prick, and I'll continue to write you off. Your choice.
...
hey, why waste a pretense to be oblivious and insulting, right? That's way more fun than being a grown-up.
...
Did you actually read the post that you're responding to, or just skim through it with an eye for sentences that you could pull out of context, misrepresent and attack?
...
Are you blind to the irony of behaving this way in response to complaints that animal rights advocates are ineffectual (and even, counterproductive) blowhards who ought to be ignored?
...
And so their inclusion looks a lot like a dishonorable attempt to sex up your rhetoric - all the better to club people over the head with.
...
Lastly, telling people that they ought to go learn stuff for themselves is, in this context, obtuse.

Is this guy good, or what? You be the judge. Remember, as quadraphonics himself says:

...just continue taking cagey shots at me, if you're content to come off as insecure and combative.

Always a pleasure.

 

[James R]

Here's some stuff that's relevant to the kinds of points I have raised in this thread:

[enc]equal_consideration[/enc]

I urge people who are new to the topic of animal rights to read this, so I don't have to repeat some of the basics again.

I also urge quadraphonics to read it. I was under the impression that he'd read it before, but it seems either he didn't understand it the first time, or else has only a vague memory of the arguments put there now.

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

@James R

I clicked on the 'Equal consideration', but an empty article shows up. *shrugs*

In the end it is just one group of people trying to force,coerce and shame another group of people inot accepting their opinion as fact.

Nobody can prove eating meat is morally wrong or morally right. Why? Becuase for EACH being that is their decision.

I can note that a true vegan-human has to supplemtnet their diet with some animal byproducts or sicken and die. Then again any pure carnivore-human must supplemtn their diet with some fruit or vegetables to avoid sickening and dying. So even nature is not taking a side in this debate.

this is not about vegetarianism though..it's about animals being kept under atrocious circumstances..

I don't understand why vegetarianism is always thrown into topics that are about animal rights and the way they're being mistreated.

 

[James R]

@James R

I clicked on the 'Equal consideration', but an empty article shows up. *shrugs*

For some reason, the link didn't work. I have altered it so that it works now.

 

[TW Scott]

You again! Hi TW Scott!

Long time no see. You disappear from the forum for months on end, but you come running back at the first whiff of an argument about vegetarianism.

Still feeling guilty, deep down?

Actually, I have posted ina few other threads in the last few weeks.

And you'll notice i took a nuetral stand.

However there NOTHING for me to feel guilty over as I enjoy my bacon cheeseburger.

 

[James R]

So you say, TW Scott. So you say. It's a pity you lack any justification.

 

[AlexG]

I don't need any justification for enjoying a bacon cheeseburger.

 

[TW Scott]

So you say, TW Scott. So you say. It's a pity you lack any justification.

Justification is for those who think that they need to vindicate something.

I have done nothing needing either. I am merely one omnivorous animal consuming food.

 

[James R]

I don't need any justification for enjoying a bacon cheeseburger.

*sigh*

Another one who's never actually considered the issue.

Really, why bother posting at all, if you're just going to display your ignorance?

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

And yet, here you are in this thread. Why are you here?

 

[AlexG]

*sigh*

Another one who's never actually considered the issue.

Really, why bother posting at all, if you're just going to display your ignorance?

So if I don't agree with your position, it must be ignorance?

If nature did not intend for me to eat meat, I would not have canine teeth for tearing it. Nor would I be able to digest meat.

Therefore, I must conclude that it is your position which may be labled as unnatural.

 

[woowoo]

If nature did not intend for me to eat meat, I would not have canine teeth for tearing it. Nor would I be able to digest meat.

a lame argument much used by meat eaters unable to rise above
their primitive origins; and after gorging on the raw flesh, under the direction
of the remnants of their reptilian brain they crawl back into the swamp.

 

[Raithere]

My opinion is not solidified on this issue. I don't find that most ethical issues can be resolved so definitively or universally, there are too many variables. But I figure I'll test the waters and see how I fair.


The unqualified statement that meat eating is universally "immoral" seems unsound to me. We've leapt past the defining arguments and gone to the conclusion. I'll attempt to set the argument back to the beginning and present my argument.

For the moment, in order to have the discussion become overly complicated, I'll consider only food animals and killing them humanely in order to eat them. Other considerations, while realistic, involve a vast array of values and principles that will confuse the issue beyond any debatable scope.


The judgment as to whether eating animals is moral or immoral depends on the relative value placed on the animal(s) in question. If the animal's food value is greater than its intrinsic value as a living thing it is perfectly moral to eat them. If their intrinsic value is greater it immoral.

To demonstrate that these values are not constant and to set some sort of boundary values, let's take the example of a human in extremis with no food source other than a live animal. Is it moral for a human at the point of starvation to kill and eat an animal in order to survive? Would it be moral for a father to do so to save the life of his child?

My personal answer to this is yes, all things being equal I value a human life over the life of an individual of another species. Although there may be some that disagree with this I think the opinion is extreme enough to put them well outside the norm. So I will conclude for the moment that at some point an animal's food value does exceed its intrinsic value.


At the other end of the scale is what is often presented as the moral argument for vegetarianism. If a human has no need for meat to sustain life and health, is it moral for a human to kill and eat an animal for mere gastronomic pleasure.

This picture is a bit fuzzier in my mind. While at first take my reaction tends towards no, I think that most people (myself included) do regard pleasure as being rather high in value. Certainly it drives a great deal of human behavior, often overriding other highly valued ethical principles and at some point I think it can be fairly stated that any human may be so motivated. The person who has never committed an act out of emotion that they later regarded as immoral is welcome to contest the point but again I think this range is fair enough that those who are sinless are outside the norm.

Let's take the Epicurean point of view, however, and consider the case of gluttonous meat eating. From this view, although we might say that at the beginning the pleasure value is rather high as it decreases it becomes rather low or even nonexistent. At some point, let's say after a huge Thanksgiving dinner after you've had to unbutton your pants and roll onto the couch, killing an animal in order to eat yet more becomes immoral. That is, the live animal has some value greater than one gets by shoveling yet more down one's gullet.

I will anticipate a protest from those who might believe that an animal has no intrinsic value and state that at the very minimum, a live animal may be killed another day to feed you when you are actually hungry or perhaps it may pull a plow or lay eggs.


We now have some reasonable value boundaries for the question. On one side, it is moral to eat an animal to save a human life. On the other, gluttonous meat eating is immoral.


This is already a long post and I find it gets even more complicated further on so I'll stop for the moment to see what the response is.

~Raithere

 

[woowoo]

We now have some reasonable value boundaries for the question. On one side, it is moral to eat an animal to save a human life. On the other, gluttonous meat eating is immoral.

I don't have a problem with that position, except to say that the life
saving scenario, in the developed world, would be relatively uncommon,
while the gluttonous side appears to be the norm.

 

[James R]

AlexG:

So if I don't agree with your position, it must be ignorance?

No. It's that you haven't even begun to examine what my position is. All you have is an unthinking belief that everything you do is automatically moral and good. Or, alternatively, that you haven't even considered that your choices about what you consume may have a moral dimension. And yet you feel the need to enter this thread to trumpet your unthinking beliefs.

You're not the only one, of course. There are lots of others just like you.

If nature did not intend for me to eat meat, I would not have canine teeth for tearing it. Nor would I be able to digest meat.

Therefore, I must conclude that it is your position which may be labled as unnatural.

Your mistake here is that you assume that everything that is "natural" is moral and good. But you're supposed to have evolved a moral sense along with your canine teeth. That means you are, in theory, capable of thinking about things and of making decisions based on morality rather than base desires and "instincts".

On the flip side, there are many many things you do all the time that are "unnatural", but that doesn't stop you doing them.

 

[James R]

Alex G:

One other thought.

Would you be happy to raise human beings so you could eat them? After all, canines that are good for tearing flesh can tear human flesh just as well as chicken or cow flesh.

So, if human was on the menu, would you have any moral qualms about chowing down? If you would, on what basis?