Offensive PETA ad / Animal ethics?

[James R]

Raithere:

Thanks for your post. I'm glad somebody is actually willing to tackle the issue in a logical, sensible and thoughtful manner.

An argument might be made that a human life is more valuable than, say, a cow's life. If that is sustainable, then obviously if it comes down to a question of a human eating a cow or dying then eating the cow is morally permissible. The case of a father killing a cow to save his child adds an extra dimension, and I imagine few people would find such an act morally dubious.

Having said that, it is important to remember that in the real world it is hardly ever, if ever, a question of "the cow dies or I die". If we restrict our consideration to affluent, western societies, then every person ordinarily has a choice of what they consume to sustain their own life. Choosing to consume another sentient being instead of, say, a plate of vegetables then requires further justification than "I need to eat to or I'll die".

When you start comparing what you call the intrinsic value of an animal to its value as food for a human being, then you need to make sure you're being ethically consistent. How do you rank the intrinsic value of a human being compared to his or her intrinsic value as food for another human being or for an animal? Would it be permissible to breed human beings solely to be eaten by other human beings? If not, why not? And if not, what is the morally significant difference between the cow and the human that makes such behaviour acceptable in the case of the cow?

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.

The moral question then becomes: does your personal pleasure in consuming an animal (which is not in any way necessary other than to satify a desire you have) outweigh the animal's interest in continuing its existence? If you think it does, you really need to justify that. Why does transient human pleasure have greater moral weight than the entire life of a non-human animal?

And again, why not eat another human for mere gastronomic pleasure? How about a depressed human who doesn't seem to be enjoying their life? Would your pleasure in eating that person trump his putative interest in remaining alive?

Going back a step, it's important to realise that some people don't believe that non-human animals actually have any interests at all, and so no moral considerations apply in respect of them. The question of eating them is then a non-issue. Killing an animal is no worse in a moral sense than breaking a stone in half. Neither has any moral weight.

What those people need to explain is what makes human beings so different from those animals whose lives just don't count for anything. It seems to me that there is a glaring moral inconsistency at work here.

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 agree with these boundaries, with perhaps a few provisos reserved for outlandish situations. They are a good starting point. Now, can we narrow things a bit further?

 

[wsionynw]

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?

Or what if an alien race wanted to purchase human infants to raise them for meat. It would no doubt be good for the economy, so how could people possibly object?

 

[Kennyc]

Life feeds on itself.

 

[TW Scott]

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?

Seeing as cannibalism opens the organism to more diseases than the consumption of another species zI would be reluctant to consume 'long pork" (as human meat is known) if other alterantivs exist. However if Long pork was the only food avalailable I would say bon apetite.


It should be of note that most of nature avoids cannobalism for exactly the same survivqal of the fittest reasons.


By the way I would point out that some ranching is done on lands that absolutely resists or is unsuitable for the types of agriculture that could repace meat in a diet. Switching over to a vegan diet would have this land become practically worthless. It would shringk our avalaible food supplies.


Peopel may claim they are becoming vegan becuase it is the moral choice, and they are right, for them, but I prefer a wider look.

 

[TW Scott]

Or what if an alien race wanted to purchase human infants to raise them for meat. It would no doubt be good for the economy, so how could people possibly object?

Small problem of by the 14th amendment we cannot own another human being thus selling them is out of the question.

 

[Kennyc]

Small problem of by the 14th amendment we cannot own another human being thus selling them is out of the question.

Ah, but that only applies to the U.S.A.

 

[wsionynw]

Small problem of by the 14th amendment we cannot own another human being thus selling them is out of the question.

Tell that to a third world country.

 

[AlexG]

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.

And this reply doesn't rise to the status of argument at all. It's just a little mini rant, empty of content.

 

[AlexG]

AlexG:



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.



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.

This is no different than religious fundies attempting to impose their own belief systems on others. You brandish the words 'moral' and 'good', as though your definitions and standards were universal. What it seems to come down to is that your position is 'moral and good', and other positions are not. No different than any other zealot.

 

[James R]

AlexG:

This is no different than religious fundies attempting to impose their own belief systems on others. You brandish the words 'moral' and 'good', as though your definitions and standards were universal. What it seems to come down to is that your position is 'moral and good', and other positions are not. No different than any other zealot.

Labelling me doesn't help cure the fact that you're not making any argument in favour of meat eating.

You can't justify it, so you call me a zealot. Says more about you than me, I'd say.

 

[Kennyc]

AlexG:



Labelling me doesn't help cure the fact that you're not making any argument in favour of meat eating.

You can't justify it, so you call me a zealot. Says more about you than me, I'd say.

Meat is a better source of calories and nutrients needed by the human body. Eating meat allowed us to better adapt/evolve. That's all the justification that is needed.

 

[AlexG]

AlexG:



Labelling me doesn't help cure the fact that you're not making any argument in favour of meat eating.

You can't justify it, so you call me a zealot. Says more about you than me, I'd say.

I don't have to justify it. It's a natural occurance. Nor am I trying to convince you to eat meat. You are the one who appears to be trying to convert the world, so yes, the label of zealot applies.

 

[AlexG]

But James, I am curious. At what point in the evolutionary cycle do you draw your moral line? Do you eat fish? I'm about to eat a lobster, which is a close relative of the cockaroach. Do you consider insects meat?

Morally, what places animals in a privledged position vis-a-vis the plant phylum?

 

[James R]

Meat is a better source of calories and nutrients needed by the human body.

Better in what way?

Eating meat allowed us to better adapt/evolve. That's all the justification that is needed.

By that argument, anything that allows you to survive and prosper is by definition morally good. i guess that would make stealing from other people good, or killing them to advance your own interests, or raping lots of women to spread your genes. Do you have any moral qualms about those things?

 

[AlexG]

Better in what way?



By that argument, anything that allows you to survive and prosper is by definition morally good. i guess that would make stealing from other people good, or killing them to advance your own interests, or raping lots of women to spread your genes. Do you have any moral qualms about those things?

James, on a different note, are you in favor of homosexual marriage? I only ask, because the argument you make for your version of morality is the same as the argument that if you allow homosexual marriage, why can't you marry a cow, or goat, or a tree?

 

[James R]

AlexG:

I don't have to justify it. It's a natural occurance.

Well that's an interesting point of view. What you're saying is that you do not choose consciously to eat meat. Because most people who make a conscious choice to do something can give a reason for why they do it rather than do something else.

Any person making a conscious choice to do anything ought to be able to justify their actions on moral grounds. Even if it's something mundane such as me choosing to take a walk down the street rather than watching TV. If you ask me how I justify it, I'll tell you it doesn't hurt anybody else, it is healthy for me to do it, etc. At the very least I'll say that whether I walk down the street or not doesn't have any particular moral impact on either myself or on other people.

And you also seem to be saying that you eat meat "naturally", and therefore it is a morally good thing to do. But if that's what you're saying, you really need to establish why it is that everything you do "naturally" is morally good. You can't just assume it.

Nor am I trying to convince you to eat meat. You are the one who appears to be trying to convert the world, so yes, the label of zealot applies.

So anybody trying to change anything is suddenly a zealot? When people spoke out about ending slavery, or ending Apartheid, or having equal rights for women, were they all zealots too?

But James, I am curious. At what point in the evolutionary cycle do you draw your moral line? Do you eat fish? I'm about to eat a lobster, which is a close relative of the cockaroach. Do you consider insects meat?

Morally, what places animals in a privledged position vis-a-vis the plant phylum?

Did you read my link above?

The starting point is that all [enc]person[/enc]s are entitled to [enc]equal_consideration[/enc] of their interests. So, we need, as a first step, to consider whether any non-human animals are persons. If in doubt, we ought to err on the side of caution and assume that they are.

A person is an entity that has some sense of itself as an ongoing "I". Anything that can say "I am doing this" or "I want that rather than this, given the choice", is a person under this definition.

Think of your dog or cat, if you have one. Is it a person, or a mere machine? If it's an automatic machine, then I guess it's ok to treat it like you'd treat your lawnmower or your car. But if it's a person, then you need to consider its interests in how you treat it. And that includes when you make a choice to eat or not to it eat.

Would you eat your dog or cat, Alex G? If not, why not?

 

[James R]

James, on a different note, are you in favor of homosexual marriage? I only ask, because the argument you make for your version of morality is the same as the argument that if you allow homosexual marriage, why can't you marry a cow, or goat, or a tree?

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. What's that argument, in your view?

 

[James R]

TW Scott:

Seeing as cannibalism opens the organism to more diseases than the consumption of another species zI would be reluctant to consume 'long pork" (as human meat is known) if other alterantivs exist. However if Long pork was the only food avalailable I would say bon apetite.

In other words, if you had to eat a human being to survive, then you would (you say), but under ordinary circumstances you would not do so. But the only thing stopping you would be considerations of your own health in that case. Correct?

By the way I would point out that some ranching is done on lands that absolutely resists or is unsuitable for the types of agriculture that could repace meat in a diet.

Regardless, the food grown to feed the ranched animals is grown on land suitable for agriculture. Obviously.

 

[AlexG]

AlexG:



Well that's an interesting point of view. What you're saying is that you do not choose consciously to eat meat. Because most people who make a conscious choice to do something can give a reason for why they do it rather than do something else.

My reason is that it tastes good.

Any person making a conscious choice to do anything ought to be able to justify their actions on moral grounds. Even if it's something mundane such as me choosing to take a walk down the street rather than watching TV.

So everything is a moral choice for you, and since morality is a subjective matter, you judge the world by whether or not it does what you approve of.

Self-rightousness is one of the ugliest facets of human behavior.

And you also seem to be saying that you eat meat "naturally", and therefore it is a morally good thing to do.

Again, you insert your own subjective version of morality, and judge the world by your standards. Now, while that is perfectly natural, I reject your standards. They're yours, not mine.

So anybody trying to change anything is suddenly a zealot?

No, anybody attempting to impose their own subjective judgments under the guise of 'good' is a zealot. Nothing sudden about it.

So, we need, as a first step, to consider whether any non-human animals are persons. If in doubt, we ought to err on the side of caution and assume that they are.

At this point, I dismiss your arguments as irrational. You wish to endow animals with the same status as people. I must say I regard that as simply wacko.

 

[AlexG]

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. What's that argument, in your view?

One argument you've made is, if you eat meat, what's wrong with cannibalism? To my mind, this is the same slippery slope argument made against homosexual marriage leading to marrying goats.