Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

[swarm]

hyp⋅o⋅crite
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocritical

Looks pretty close to me.

It would be hypocritical of me to claim I have intrinsic value, because I don't believe any such thing exists.

A person who believes in it would not be pretending. They would actually believe, as a number of others used to, that they are specially blessed with a value that mere animals, plants and rocks don't have.

The veggie however is diluting this specialness by trying to extend it, without justification, to animals and not plants or rock merely as a rhetorical ploy - which makes it hypocritical. If you believe in intrinsic value, then animals don't have it. It is part of our "humanness."

Of course adding to the confusion is this is a pretty whacked use of the concept intrinsic value.

 

[Enmos]

It would be hypocritical of me to claim I have intrinsic value

And you do.

A person who believes in it would not be pretending. They would actually believe, as a number of others used to, that they are specially blessed with a value that mere animals, plants and rocks don't have.

Ok, then a person is either hypocritical or stupid.
However, I don't think many people actually believe it. They just act as if they believe it.

The veggie however is diluting this specialness by trying to extend it, without justification, to animals and not plants or rock merely as a rhetorical ploy - which makes it hypocritical.

Extending it to animals is only logical. Not extending it to plants is hypocritical.

If you believe in intrinsic value, then animals don't have it. It is part of our "humanness."

What if I believe that all living creatures are equally valuable ?
It's either all or nothing.

Of course adding to the confusion is this is a pretty whacked use of the concept intrinsic value.

The concept itself is pretty whacked to begin with.

 

[swarm]

And you do.

I don't at any point claim to have intrinsic value and I explicitly deny the concept early on in the discussion.

Extending it to animals is only logical.

Only if you think "two wrongs make a right" is only logical.

What if I believe that all living creatures are equally valuable ?

Value is inherantly a distinction between things. It would be like saying "I think everything is equally the largest." If all creatures are equally inherantly valuable then they are likewise equally inherantly valueless. The term "value" is robbed of any meaning and you arrive at my point. No intrinsic value. All value is arbitrarily assigned.

We might as well go back to the invisible sky fairly mandating morality and determining inherant value.

 

[John99]

milk from a cow is fantastic. too many reasons why. nothing else even comes close.

hell, we wouldnt even be here were it not for animals. at the same time many animals would not be.

think about that.

 

[Enmos]

I don't at any point claim to have intrinsic value and I explicitly deny the concept early on in the discussion.

And yet you still act as if you do possess intrinsic value.

Only if you think "two wrongs make a right" is only logical.

From the premise 'humans have intrinsic value' it's logical to assert that other animals and plants also have intrinsic value.

Value is inherantly a distinction between things. It would be like saying "I think everything is equally the largest." If all creatures are equally inherantly valuable then they are likewise equally inherantly valueless. The term "value" is robbed of any meaning and you arrive at my point. No intrinsic value. All value is arbitrarily assigned.

And I agree.

We might as well go back to the invisible sky fairly mandating morality and determining inherant value.

It's inherent to humans to be arrogant and selfish as a species. Whether people believe in an invisible skydaddy or not they will still value themselves over other creatures.
Of course all species with a brain share this bias, the problem with humans is their potential for arrogance in bringing it in practice.

 

[Enmos]

milk from a cow is fantastic. too many reasons why. nothing else even comes close.

hell, we wouldnt even be here were it not for animals. at the same time many animals would not be.

think about that.

Think about what ?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

An animal isn't a person. A person is an individual human.

What if it was made posible for an ape an a human to mate... sinse ther offspring woud be even mor closely geneticaly related to humans than apes are... woud you see it as rong to cloan the offspring an raize 'em like cattle for human consumpton.???

 

[John99]

because they are even mor closely geneticaly related to humans than apes

never has the saying 'close don't count' been more relevant.

 

[blackfoundations]

How was "Absence Of Equality" changed to "Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights"?

 

[glaucon]

I don't see the connection between these two statements.

I agree that "murder" is an emotive term, but I'm not sure how it is dishonest. Meat eaters kill animals because they like the taste of their flesh. If they did the same to other human beings, this would be called murder.

Right.
I should have been more clear. I meant that it's dishonest to say such if the person making the claim is in fact one who does nonetheless, eat animals. See my response to your third point below.

Which makes the moral decision all the more important, wouldn't you say?

I agree conditionally. Again, see below.

You join Norsefire and other great forum intellects in holding that view. Perhaps you can explain to me why choosing to kill sentient creatures for your own pleasure is not a moral issue.

I cannot. Killing for pleasure is not an activity I could condone in any sense; none of my comments were related to this aspect of the discussion. All I'm maintaining is that if we are going to eat other animals, then it's a little silly for us to get all emotionally bound up in it. In other words, be honest to yourself: we eat animals, which means that they were killed for that purpose. Call it murder if you like, but I don't think it's comparable to the murder of another human being.

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:
But I've already told you why that's not relevant. It's just speciesism. Membership of a species is not a morally significant divider, in and of itself. You'll need to do better than that.

Are you serious? Really?

Yes, it's specieism. But that is not comparable to racism. They're an entirely different species and their survival is not our concern.

I guess when a mother bird feeds her children, it's specieism

I guess when a bear mother defends her cubs it's specieism

It is, because your SPECIES is important, y'know.

Also address my point about making paper and making almost anything being immoral.

Fine. But that's irrelevant. You don't need to eat meat.

We don't need to make paper.

Your claim that one morality is as good as any other is silly. Clearly that is not the case.

How do you tell when a morality is better than another? Because you say so? That's silly.

Let's go back a step.

Do you believe that a human infant has intrinsic value? To take a specific example, do you believe that human children ought not to be arbitrarily killed and eaten, or otherwise exploited as a resource?

You didn't answer the question. Try again.

Human children are human, and to us humans humans have more value than non humans. You see? Just like bears have more value to bears than salmon

 

[Doreen]

You join Norsefire and other great forum intellects in holding that view.

How, well, immoderate this was. A double ad hominim. Touche.

 

[James R]

swarm:

Many probably never consider the implications of "lamb", and most don't know what veal is.

So you are an idiot. Are you frothing at the mouth yet?

Does it make you madddd?

Mad enough to KILLLL?

Looking for BLOOD????

Bwahahahaha!

This extreme reaction shows that I must have hit a nerve with you somewhere. Did you just find out what veal is? Feeling guilty? And you blame me for your guilt?

Nothing has intrinsic value.

Did you read your own link?

I find it very duplicitous of you to pretend like you actually care about cows. You are just exploiting them for your arguments. You don't have any relationship with any cows nor do you care about them as a species. You would happily and hypocritically decimate their populations as long as no one benefited from it and the means didn't make you squeamish.

If you want to know my opinions or my experiences, ask me. Don't make silly assumptions to suit yourself. You make yourself look even more stupid when you do that.

Your arguments lack any real substance and are mainly cheap emotional ploys like "Do you support human slavery too?"

I note you are unwilling or unable to consider the parallels. Why? That guilt again?

There's no ethical problem with "fake meat"

well except tasting disgusting, not being very nutritious and being fake meat for fake-itarians.

None of which are ethical problems, even if they were true. Like I said.

Explain to me why what you eat is not a moral issue.

Sure. Nature, natural processes, natural functions, etc. are neither good nor bad.

Do you class all human behaviour as a "natural function" of a human being, or is eating a special "natural" behaviour exempt from the moral tests we place on the rest of human behaviour? What makes eating a special, exempt, behaviour? Please explain.

Every single cow on the planet is going to died one way or another even if we don't eat a single bit of meat. We kill them. Disease kills them. Other predators kill them. Old age kills them. The inevitable end result is a dead cow.

You could say the same about human beings, but I bet you don't eat human babies.

At the moment we choose to kill them, and protect them from competition, other predators, disease and old age. We see to their food and care and when they are dead we use their bodies.

Why don't you support doing the same thing to human beings? You know, "protecting" them from old age, other "predators" like yourself, cancers and other old-age diseases and so on? You appear to have a double standard.

Factory farming is immoral because it is inherently cruel to and unhealthy for the animal and the people.

Not that you have any concern for the animals. They are just things for exploitation, having no value and all that. And there's that double standard again.

Your plan puts the cattle back at risk in the wild again and is therefor less moral.

I don't believe I mentioned a plan. What are you talking about?

For those who don't bother to click links James' use of "intrinsic value" is a sneeky way to imply amimals are humans while trying not to sound stupid by actually saying it.

No. I am saying that at least some animals may be properly regarded as persons, which is not the same as human beings. I use person in the sense that philosophers have defined that term. Look it up in your online philosophy dictionary.

A less baised write up of the concept can be had here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/

A useful link. Thankyou. Did you read it?

An animal isn't a person. A person is an individual human.

Even you might have heard of "legal persons", such a corporations. In this case, I am introducing you to yet another meaning of the word "person" - one that is wider than your everyday definition of person = human being. Probably this is the first time you have encountered the concept.

It would be hypocritical of me to claim I have intrinsic value, because I don't believe any such thing exists.

Many philosophers disagree with you. And they have reasons.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

But I've already told you why that's not relevant. It's just speciesism. Membership of a species is not a morally significant divider, in and of itself. You'll need to do better than that.

Are you serious? Really?

Yes, it's specieism. But that is not comparable to racism. They're an entirely different species and their survival is not our concern.

Black people are an entirely different race to white people, and their survival is not the white people's concern.

Speciesism is treating like different from like just because it is a member of a different species, just as racism is treating one race differently from another just because of the racial difference. Racism is a failure to recognise a common humanity. Speciesism, an admittedly harder-to-grasp concept, is a failure to recognise common sentience, consciousness and other such features. Given that some people still don't get racism, speciesism is a big ask, I admit.

Also address my point about making paper and making almost anything being immoral.

We don't need to make paper.

That's arguable. There seem to me to be a number of benefits that come from having paper. On the other hand, I agree that there are also harms. What we are then morally obliged to do is to weigh up the benefits and harms and decide on our moral stance to paper making. If the harms outweigh the benefits, then we should not make paper.

We can discuss the morality of paper making in a separate thread if you wish to examine the issue in more detail.

How do you tell when a morality is better than another? Because you say so? That's silly.

I tend to use my ability to reason. I listen to the arguments on each side and I make a reasoned judgment. A morality is not just one person's opinion, if you ask me. A morality must be logically consistent, defensible, reasonable. If it isn't, then it might not qualify as a morality at all, except in the loosest possible sense of the word.

Do you believe that a human infant has intrinsic value? To take a specific example, do you believe that human children ought not to be arbitrarily killed and eaten, or otherwise exploited as a resource?

Human children are human, and to us humans humans have more value than non humans. You see? Just like bears have more value to bears than salmon

You still didn't answer my questions. Try one more time, with a "yes" or "no" to each question.

 

[Enmos]

Call it murder if you like, but I don't think it's comparable to the murder of another human being.

Why not ?
You mean in the same sense that murdering an elephant might not be comparable to murdering a giraffe ?

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:
Black people are an entirely different race to white people, and their survival is not the white people's concern.

Speciesism is treating like different from like just because it is a member of a different species, just as racism is treating one race differently from another just because of the racial difference. Racism is a failure to recognise a common humanity. Speciesism, an admittedly harder-to-grasp concept, is a failure to recognise common sentience, consciousness and other such features. Given that some people still don't get racism, speciesism is a big ask, I admit.

That's the point, we don't have common sentience and consciousness with chickens. We're sapient. We have individuality, personality; we can ponder an after life; we have imaginations. We get philosophical and religious and political. We have the capacity to be our own gods. How can you compare chickens to human intellect?

That's arguable. There seem to me to be a number of benefits that come from having paper. On the other hand, I agree that there are also harms. What we are then morally obliged to do is to weigh up the benefits and harms and decide on our moral stance to paper making. If the harms outweigh the benefits, then we should not make paper.

There. There you have it.

The benefit outweighs the harm in the case of eating meat; benefit? Meat is good, and you get protein, and it's a big industry.

Harm? Maybe it can be fattening. But....hmm, can't think of anything else.

I tend to use my ability to reason. I listen to the arguments on each side and I make a reasoned judgment. A morality is not just one person's opinion, if you ask me. A morality must be logically consistent, defensible, reasonable. If it isn't, then it might not qualify as a morality at all, except in the loosest possible sense of the word.

I agree but I assumed this was assumed.

However even under your requirements, morality is still subjective, because one can be consistent, defensible, reasonable, etc in their moral code. Take Hitler, for example.

His morality is arguably much different than yours, but you are no more 'right' than he. Not objectively; he backed up his opinion and his beliefs. He defended his ideals. His moral code favored the strong over the weak in the interest of national strength, and understood that sacrifices are sometimes necessary.

You still didn't answer my questions. Try one more time, with a "yes" or "no" to each question.

What questions?

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

That's the point, we don't have common sentience and consciousness with chickens.

You deny that chickens are conscious and can feel pain?

We're sapient. We have individuality, personality; we can ponder an after life; we have imaginations. We get philosophical and religious and political. We have the capacity to be our own gods. How can you compare chickens to human intellect?

They don't need to have the same intellect. All they need is to qualify as [enc]person[enc]s.

The benefit outweighs the harm in the case of eating meat; benefit? Meat is good, and you get protein, and it's a big industry.

Harm? Maybe it can be fattening. But....hmm, can't think of anything else.

Multiple mistakes there.

I don't know what you mean by "good" when you say "meat is good". It sounds like you're assuming what you're trying to prove again.

You get protein from meat. Ok. But there are other ways to get protein.

The meat industry is big. Ok. But what makes big industry inherently good?

Harms:

You have failed to identify the major harm - the deaths of sentient, conscious animals. That is, the animals are harmed, irreparably. The fact that this point still hasn't sunk into your thick skull shows that you have a weird kind of willful moral blindness.

You also assume that a meat diet is healthier than a vegetarian diet, with no supporting evidence. In fact, the evidence is against you on that point.

However even under your requirements, morality is still subjective, because one can be consistent, defensible, reasonable, etc in their moral code. Take Hitler, for example.

Hitler's version of "morality" was not consistent, defensible or reasonable.

His morality is arguably much different than yours, but you are no more 'right' than he.

Nonsense. The man was a racist, fascist dictator who advocated the genocide of an entire people. If you think that's good, you're barking mad like him.

You still didn't answer my questions. Try one more time, with a "yes" or "no" to each question.

What questions?

Why should I repeat myself yet again. I assume you cannot or will not answer.

 

[swarm]

This extreme reaction shows ....

Ah, the self important veggie. Sorry, I've known about veal since I was a teen when we discussed what it was and why it was cruel along with Strasbourg geese.

Did you read your own link?

Yes I did. Did you? Did you bother to consider the issues?

If you want to know my opinions or my experiences, ask me. Don't make silly assumptions to suit yourself. You make yourself look even more stupid when you do that.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander you stupid person.

I note you are unwilling or unable to consider the parallels. Why? That guilt again?

You must be a secret xtian to try and pull so many guilt trips. What a stupid ploy to try and shore up a stupid and indefensible position.

All human behavior is a natural function of being human.

I bet you don't eat human babies.

I bet you did. Have you stopped yet?

Why don't you support doing the same thing to human beings?

Because I don't and you, of all people should be glad of it.

You appear to have a double standard.

Only when you mischaracterize it.

Not that you have any concern for the animals.

Doesn't lying bother your elevated sense of morals? Or can any standard be sacrificed for your cause?

To what lengths are you willing to go? Will you kill for your cause?

 

[swarm]

What if ...

What if pigs had wings? Would you serve red or white wine with them?

Personally I don't eat apes or monkeys, but in places where they live the local peoples often do.

 

[swarm]

And yet you still act as if you do possess intrinsic value.

No I don't.

From the premise 'humans have intrinsic value' it's logical to assert that other animals and plants also have intrinsic value.

No it isn't.

It's inherent to humans to be arrogant and selfish as a species.

If you call being more concerned with other species than any other species in the history of the planet inherently "arrogant and selfish as a species."

they will still value themselves over other creatures.

Just like all other species, except humans will actually sacrifice themselves to help other species, something no other species does.