Until you give all animals equal rights to humans,

[glaucon]

Shut up about Ethics, ethics are not ethical if it's selfish.

blah, blah....

For the cocky people ...

blah, blah...



Methinks thou doth protest too much...

 

[Enmos]

You got that right! :thumbsup:

I largely agree with what Roman wrote. But the part that you quoted just doesn't work anymore. If everyone would start foraging their own food we would have a major disaster on our hands. How long do you think it will take before most larger animals (from rat-size up) will be extinct or virtually extinct ?

 

[Roman]

Yeah and you can hire me and give me a pay raise to where I can afford (both time-wise and financial-wise) to go out and hunt, or go to the higher end grocery or health stores that sell them that way.

So it's a matter of convenience. You place your convenience and happiness above the thousands of animals you've eaten. That's fair, imo.

So you're saying that when a lion or <insert predator here> takes down a wildebeast, gazelle, impala, etc. that the animal feels no pain whatsoever?
PFFT.

But what does that have to do with your actions?

No, not all slaughter houses do that. The ones who do need to change their methods. While I don't like that method (because the animal is not required to be dead), they are required to render the animal insensitive to pain.
Quite a few slaughter houses use a metal spike between the eyes. It's fast enough to where it's just like a bullet. Instant death.
And besides, how is that different than a wildebeast being held down by the throat by a lion while his buddies gut him?

To the former; the way the animals are raised and the way they are killed, for all the meat you consume, are pretty awful. Certainly not the sort of life you'd want your dog to have. You'd rather have your dog run wild and get killed by coyotes than raised in a high density feed lot before getting poked in the brain and skinned alive. You know those spikes miss, right? There are some sweet videos of screaming pigs bleeding out, cause the stun failed.

To the latter; how is me raping your girlfriend while my buddies stomp the shit out of you any different from chimp society?

I'm glad to know you've been on enough farms to know this. My uncle has over 300 acres of beef cattle farmland. His cows spend most of their time outside grazing...deplorable conditions I tell you.

OMG!!!! 300 acres of beef!
That's nothing. Your supermarket buys beef largely from industrial suppliers. Especially the cheap stuff that's not "free range" (which, by the way, is a largely meaningless qualifier).

My stance on that hasn't changed. But I'm puzzled at why you lack the mental capacity to see the correlation of pain between how they are killed at the slaughter house and if a predator or predators took them down.

You are arguing that which is natural is right. Unless you accept that murder, rape, etc. is right, then your argument from nature is a fallacy.

There is no acceptable substitute for leather
There is no acceptable substitute for beef

You mean convenient substitute. You can eat soy and wear cotton or use plastic. But since you put your welfare above animals, you choose to inflict pain (indirectly) by continuing to purchase those products.

 

[Roman]

Here's the modern meat eater's dilemma:

If you reject Decartes notion that animals are unthinking, unfeeling machines, which we should, based on what we know about evolution, and our own experiences with animals, then we are faced with three choices.

1. Give up most animal products because it's causing animals a lot of pain.
2. Continue to eat meat and pretend that we aren't being inconsistent*.
3. Continue eating meat because you don't care.

*The inconsistency being that we don't like to hurt things for selfish reasons, and say that that is wrong, yet eat meat anyway.

 

[glaucon]

1. Give up most animal products because it's causing animals a lot of pain.
2. Continue to eat meat and pretend that we aren't being inconsistent*.
3. Continue eating meat because you don't care.

Well summed up.

I choose option #3.

 

[mikenostic]

So it's a matter of convenience. You place your convenience and happiness above the thousands of animals you've eaten. That's fair, imo.

Life's not fair. Get used to it.

But what does that have to do with your actions?

Nothing. See below.

To the former; the way the animals are raised and the way they are killed, for all the meat you consume, are pretty awful. Certainly not the sort of life you'd want your dog to have. You'd rather have your dog run wild and get killed by coyotes than raised in a high density feed lot before getting poked in the brain and skinned alive. You know those spikes miss, right? There are some sweet videos of screaming pigs bleeding out, cause the stun failed.

Sounds like those organizations aren't following rules.

To the latter; how is me raping your girlfriend while my buddies stomp the shit out of you any different from chimp society?[/QUOTE]
Ohhhhh, now I get it. This isn't about pain of death. It's about the conditions they live in. Glad to see you are beating this point around the bush rather than just coming out and saying it.



OMG!!!! 300 acres of beef!
That's nothing. Your supermarket buys beef largely from industrial suppliers. Especially the cheap stuff that's not "free range" (which, by the way, is a largely meaningless qualifier).

You are arguing that which is natural is right. Unless you accept that murder, rape, etc. is right, then your argument from nature is a fallacy.

And like I mention above, your argument of trying to compare pain of death between nature and artificial rather than comparing living conditions is a fallacy as well.

You mean convenient substitute. You can eat soy and wear cotton or use plastic. But since you put your welfare above animals, you choose to inflict pain (indirectly) by continuing to purchase those products.

No, I should have said 'acceptable' substitute.
Fair enough, you go out and buy a cotton or plastic jacket and stay warm. I'll stick with what's tried and true.

 

[Roman]

And like I mention above, your argument of trying to compare pain of death between nature and artificial rather than comparing living conditions is a fallacy as well.

I thought we were talking about the generally cruel and degrading conditions that meat animals are put through, and how it is wrong, given certain premises you accept or beliefs that you would hold.

Your arguments FOR eating meat, so far, have been little more than inconsistent and fallacious stutterings of someone poorly defending an indefensible position, given their own implicit premises.

You should re-evaluate your assumptions.

No, I should have said 'acceptable' substitute.
Fair enough, you go out and buy a cotton or plastic jacket and stay warm. I'll stick with what's tried and true.

Just like owning a slave is an acceptable substitute to paying someone to do it for you you.

Also, leather is horribly inefficient at keeping you warm. It weighs a lot, does nothing for you when it gets wet, and isn't that insulating. The best stuff are synthetic polymers.

 

[codanblad]

Sooooo, when mountain lions, bobcats, bears, lions, tigers and cheetahs take down and kill their prey, it's painless? You should type up a memo and send it to all the predators (lions, tigers, crocs, etc.) out there. I'm sure they'll understand where you're coming from.

If one kills a cow, and uses its meat for food, its skin for leather and it's bones, etc. for other useful stuff, how is that inflicting pain under whimsical circumstances?

predators kill to survive, i have an issue with people killing animals cos they feel like steak for dinner, when they have alternatives. i'm aware that conditions in the wild are harsh, that doesn't mean by giving them better living conditions we get the right to harm them.

like i said before, if a person uses leather to survive, i'm ok with that, but when they use it because its aesthetically preferable to cotton or denim etc., i think its immoral. unless the cow died of natural causes.

What exactly are we doing to 'hurt' them? Please tell us.

pigs have to be bled out. i imagine that hurts. bad living conditions hurt.

So just because we're intelligent, we shouldn't eat meat? WTF are you talking about?

i said we have intelligence, we have thought of reasons not to eat meat. animals don't have our intelligence, they have not thought of reasons. (i assume)

Given that we are the most intelligent, we have pretty much done what we've wanted to on this planet; that's not necessarily a good thing.

i agree with that.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Also, leather is horribly inefficient at keeping you warm. It weighs a lot, does nothing for you when it gets wet, and isn't that insulating.

But it's sturdier and is more resistant to tearing, puncturing, distorting, etc. There's good reason for it being the classic motorcycle jacket. Besides, you're exaggerating. I rode motorcycles for twenty years and found leather to be good insulation. It's a perfect outer layer over a sweater if it gets colder.

The best stuff are synthetic polymers.

They may be warm and waterproof but they are CLAMMY. They don't breathe. You can wear a leather jacket on a warm day, but if you try that with a synthetic you'll be stewing in your own broth. Like those nasty "microfleece" sweat-suits. Sweat indeed.

This sounds like a case for wool. It's sustainable and doesn't kill the sheep (or other artiodactyl). Everybody's got a job to do and being shaved once a year (if it's done humanely, I'm not familiar with the process) doesn't sound like the world's worst job.

 

[codanblad]

Wrong. My respect for them is not respect for their taste and respect alone is not enough to warrant not eating them. I respect their strength, speed agility, etc., depending on the animal in question.

i think ur respect for them is negligible.

For the most part, the deaths of animals are quick.

what are you basing that on? does anyone have any sources? being bled out doesn't sound quick, and the conditions they live in are pretty bad for some.

What I was saying is that, viewed against the state of nature and using natural criteria, cows are a remarkably successful species. That success is a direct result of man's intervention in their lives.

what's the relevance. they don't care. it doesn't lessen their pain at any point.

No, that is a false analogy. You are begging the question by equating eating the animal with "abuse." The proper analogy is "I have done you this great boon, and now I require you do something for me."

i don't think eating it is abuse, i think harming it is abuse. if people want to eat meat that has died of natural causes, i don't mind. i don't think our analogies are different, doing someone a favour doesn't give you special rights. you might expect a person to return a favour, but you can't demand it of them.

And if they do not have morals, why then do we have to treat them as our equals? Why should I be considered "bad" for eating shark meat, but the shark gets a pass if it eats me?

a shark eats to survive, i have no problem with that. when people hurt something cos they like how it tastes, its immoral.

There is not reason to believe that 100 years from now we will not have 100% artificial food. At that time people like you will be wailing and gnashing their teeth regarding the vegetable holocaust that occurs because people eat living plants and fungi.

There is no objective reason to believe that plants are "lesser" life forms as compared to animals. The reason you do not give them the same regard is only that they are less like you. The anti-meat crusade is overly narcissistic.

ridiculous slippery slope argument. if someone could demonstrate plants are capable of feeling pain, i guess i might be sympathetic to their plight. my sympathy for animals stems for their ability to experience pain, not any perceived similarity. i can struggle to identify with people, let alone animals.

I don't foist [my] value onto others.

i'm giving my opinion on a forum. you're right that i'm yet to enact the final phase of my master plan to remove meat as a world food source though. kidding.

Again, I think you anthropomorphize...animals do not live their lives as happiness-seeking utility maximizers. Humans are utility maximizers and what it had led to in us is low birth rates and, in many places, negative population grown. The rules of natural selection do not obviously favor utility maximization because personal happiness is not obviously a superior reproductive strategy as compared to a life where one sacrifices personal happiness in favor of an increased birth rate.

To measure the value of a cows' existence in terms of happiness or sadness is natural for a human, because we conceptualize the world in human terms, but utility maximization is a very human strategy for living one's life.

i've made it clear what i think, and its that experiencing pain is lame. i haven't personified animals, i'm not measuring the value of a cow's existence.

again you're referring to populations as if its making the cows happy, or is achieving some kind of goal. i don't think animals read the census, not cos they don't read, cos they wouldn't give a shit.

The proper comparison is "If I do my friend a favor is it immoral to require that he pay me back?" The answer is: No

favor: "something done or granted out of goodwill, rather than from justice or for remuneration". when you do someone a service and expect payment, its your responsibility to make an agreement beforehand. animals can't do that, so you can't make contracts with cows. doing something knowing it hurts a creature, when its not for the animals benefit, is immoral.

I say that rights arise by collective consent.

only their recognition is affected by collective consent.

I do not believe that rights are objective. I believe humanity defines them. Even if they are externally derived (and therefore objective), however, people do not agree on the content of these supposed "objective" rights, and hence they do not universally allow them to be enforced. So even if they are "objective" it is only in an abstract sense, since for practical purposes they can and will be denied to me so long as the consensus of the people around me wills them to be so denied.

yes we define them, not create them. i'm not religious, but theoretically there is a correct set of morals yet to be defined by man (or we don't know it, and its in some library lol). the manner in which people regard and enforce rights is irrelevant to whether rights exist, and what they are.

An appeal to popularity is not a logical fallacy when the populace defines the thing in question.

so now i've established i don't feel this is the case.

Since meat-eating societies are stable and have been over the long term, there clearly are valid sets of ethics that allow for it to occur.

viability doesn't equal morality.

I do not view the desire to eat meat as "whimsical". If it is, it is a "whimsy" that nature has had for about 700 million years. And in that 700 million years only one meat-eating species is burdened with the ethical obstacle you raise. If ethics were objective, then you'd think Nature would have made more allowance for them.

only one species has recognised morality. when you have access to supermarkets and nutritional information, eating meat is often whimsical. natural selection doesn't work the way you're suggesting.

As for hurting the fetus, of course abortions cause pain to the fetus. Why can a fetus's life be sacrificed so a woman can not have to worry about raising a family? Again I think of it as a cost-benefit analysis of what the fetus endures against what the mother gains.

In the end I am not sure that you'd agree that giving an animal a swift and painless death entitles you to consume it.

well if i were in the position to have an abortion i'd consider the quality of life the child was faced with, as well as the impact on other people. i'm not saying physical pain is the most earth shatteringly powerful force on the planet, it doesn't outweigh every consideration, i do think its more important than what a person feels like for dinner though.

i'm saying if you give an animal a swift painless death and provide the best possible living conditions, eating the animal might be justifiable.

 

[swarm]

There is no acceptable substitute for leather

Ain't that the truth. And the fake leather creates tons of very nasty pollution.

I've had two belts in the last 30 years. Good leather lasts and it molds to fit.

There is no acceptable substitute for beef

Oh, I don't know. Lamb is really tasty too and I'm also partial to goose and shrimp.

But the bottom line is there isn't a choice in the matter. Herd animals, grasslands, and large predators all coevolved together. herd animals have to be killed at appropriate rates or all hell breaks loose and we just don't like sharing with other large predators because from time to time they mistake us for prey.

The other choice is to exterminate the large herd animals like we have their predators. Of course that would still be killing them.

One of the real ironies here is agriculture actually kills more animals than the meat industry. Its just the dead are wasted and the "vegans" don't see the blood on their food.

 

[swarm]

What sort of gun did you carry?

Why would she need a gun?

 

[Randwolf]

Humans are, after all, just another animal in the world.

Interesting point of view. Perhaps all animals (including humans) share a common ancestor, maybe that's why we all have such similar behaviors. Hey, you know, I just spontaneously came up with a name for this - how does "evolution" roll off your tongue? Just a thought...

 

[Randwolf]

I believe we should eat animals because we can. I have no problem with killing, skinning and dressing my own, but I find it more convenient to pay the butcher to do this for me.

Meat (Animals) is very tasty, and since I am, by nature, omnivorous (blame nature, god or whatever else you please) I will continue to kill (directly or indirectly) fish, mammals, crustaceans, etc. just because I can, then I will consume said creatures with relish. Is this fair? Would it be "right" in a perfect world? NO! So what? Life is what it is, and I elect to be omnivorous.

I am sorry that other living creatures will die to provide sustenance for me, but not sorry enough to alter my lifestyle. "Hats off" to vegans, etc. that practice a different lifestyle than the one I have elected. However, if you are going to start down the "you are immoral and evil because you consume other creatures to live" road, then you can fuck off. Pleasant day everyone.

 

[codanblad]

I believe we should eat animals because we can.

I will consume said creatures with relish. Is this fair? Would it be "right" in a perfect world? NO! So what? Life is what it is

we can rape and torture animals too, if you want the obvious flaw in your reasoning.

addressing the 'so what', well morality and fairness is important to some people. Life is what we make of it, otherwise we'd still be cavemen.

 

[swarm]

actually rape and torture of many animals is illegal.

 

[Randwolf]

we can rape and torture animals too, if you want the obvious flaw in your reasoning.

addressing the 'so what', well morality and fairness is important to some people. Life is what we make of it, otherwise we'd still be cavemen.

codanblad, perhaps you missed the part of my post reading: '"Hats off" to vegans, etc. that practice a different lifestyle than the one I have elected.'

As to the other, I do not consider it immoral or unfair to eat animals, but I would certainly ascribe those attributes to 'rape and torture'.

I do not recognize your right to insinuate, by implication or otherwise, that I am unfair and / or immoral because I chose not to be a vegetarian and stop eating meat. I will be quite content to do so when we are able to synthesize meat products. After a period of adjustment, I believe the human race will adopt a completely different position regarding killing animals. That behavior will probably become almost nonexistent and most people will share the viewpoint you apparently have today.

However, we are not there yet. So we will have to settle for agreeing to disagree about whether it is right or moral to eat animals. I do not hunt for "sport" nor kill anything for fun. I outgrew the desire for sport hunting long ago, and I believe mankind will similarly outgrow killing animals at all - eventually. That day has not yet arrived...

 

[fedr808]

Im sorry to break it too yah, but animal rights extremist arguements like yourselfs are based on the fact that animals are equivalent to humans. Which in reality theyre not.

Animals did not discover oil, or fire, or harness electricity, they didnt cure diseases, create penicilin. They just eat, crap, and die, not much more to it than that, if you look at the long term, you mahy throw in evolve.

 

[Pandaemoni]

codanblad:

Suffice to say that you and I will never have a meeting of the minds on this, and we will always be subject to an honest and good faith disagreement. You believe that morality is objective, and that anyone who does not follow the one and only moral law is behaving in an immoral way (even though, I think, you would admit that no human being can ever be positively certain that he "knows" what that objectively true moral law is). Absent a belief that a god or gods write the sole true set of moral rules, I see this as a strangely Platonic view, as it seems to me to require the invocation of a "theory of forms." What we see as a chair is only a shadow the the one and single "true chair" that exists on a higher plane we cannot perceive and of which all of the chairs in our world are merely imperfect reflections. (Save that, instead of "chair" you insert "set of ethical rules.") To me it's likelsuggesting that there is one true but unknowable "speed limit" on highways and that any legislature that sets a different one is objectively wrong.

I believe that all morality is subjective and what we, as a society, call "immoral" is based on a consensus view of many subjective opinions. I also tend to believe that even if it were objective in that Platonic "Theory of Forms" sense, that the fact that its content is utterly unprovable makes it indistinguishable from a purely subjective matter. Occam's razor might suggest that we tentatively conclude it is subjective, since that position does not require the existence of an unprovable, perfect, objective form.

It seems to me, in that event, that we would treat ethics as subjective anway, because even if we feel strongly about a particular rule, we have to have the humility to recognize that our view may be incorrect--that we have no stronger or better understanding of the perfect "form" of ethics than those who disagree with us. Society therefore operates on a consensus of subjective views about what morality is, even if the morality is objective and many people (and possibly *everyone* in the whole world who exists, has existed or will ever exist) are holding views that are objectively (if unprovably) incorrect.

(The other alternative is that morality flows directly from Reason, which might render it discoverable, but many philosophers have started with that premise, including Kant, and yet no general consensus has every been reached that they were on to anything that could be considered "universal.")

 

[Challenger78]

It occurs to me that. If only the pure could judge the rest of us, then there would be no justice for the pure are a minority, and morals and laws are defined by the majority. Wow. I cant believe i wrote all that using an N95.