Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



Finally we are getting to the nitty gritty. I see that you now accept my point that these things are relevant to the decision as to whether to eat the animal or not. That is progress.

The next thing you need to do is to actually try to find out for yourself whether your claims about the sense of self, awareness, thinking abilities of animals such as chickens are actually true or not, rather than just assuming whatever you find is convenient. As it happens, you're completely off base again in your assumptions.

Thus late, they [livestock] have not displayed the ability to reason; they have not displayed an awareness of their own mortality; they have not displayed 'culture'; etc, etc

They have not displayed anything comparable to human sapience.

Do you agree, then, that it is morally wrong to eat a dolphin or a dog?

No, I simply acknowledge that their level of consciousness is significant enough to take into account when deciding whether or not to eat them.

However, most livestock are not as intelligent as dolphins or dogs. Chickens are some of the least intelligent species.

I would find killing a sapient AI much more immoral than a mindless chicken.

Your personal tastes are irrelevant to the moral argument.

That which is good, is moral, right?

Maybe you can back up these claims, too, but I doubt it.

The problem is that you have to eat alot of veggies in order to get enough protein. Meat is packed with it.

Have you ever seen a vegan bodybuilder?

The question is not whether they are at the same level as humans, or whether they have all the capacities of humans. I contend that it is not necessary that something be the same as a human being in all respects in order to be entitled to equal consideration. A minimal level of consciousness, sentience and the like ought to be enough for us to respect their basic rights as persons.

Not enough for me. They have to posess certain other qualities:

self-awareness. True self-awareness of oneself as a distinct, unique individual with thoughts

'Ego'. They have to posess personality and imagination

Also, a sense of one's own continuity in the future, and being able to actively understand what death is

Etcetera

Chickens are not mindless, however convenient it is for you to think so. Once again, I assume you have had no close contact with chickens except on your dinner plate, or you wouldn't make such silly claims.

Like I said, I had chicks for pets a long time ago.

Chickens do not think and ponder and philosophize and have imagination and culture and personality and individuality.

I know plenty of vegetarians and vegans who are perfectly healthy and happy. In fact, I don't personally know any who have diet-related health problems.

I know there are plenty of vegans that have problems with protein, B12, etc

Read my statement again. I did not in any way refer to what I like or do not like. Objectively, Hitler's morality was not consistent, defensible or reasonable.

Well, is this because it is fascist, or because you are actually talking about his personal morality?

If the former, then it's biased and unfair. If the latter then that's a different case. He did not argue his position well enough.

reasonable: showing reason or sound judgement.

Eliminating pests is reasonable, in my opinion.

Remember, that is what they were in his opinion.
*Not reflective of my views

You think I ought to be more like Hitler and value Humanitarianism as much as he did, do you? Is that what you do?

No, but you ought to understand that sacrifice can be justified. In the name of efficiency, security, and the wellbeing of the state.

Not in the name of freedom, but who said fascists value freedom?
The problem is you dismiss fascism offhand. I don't blame you, because 'fascist' is an extremely negative word these days - one that is often misused and not understood.

I'm talking about fascist as an actual political concept. Hiter's ideology was more Nazism than fascism. True fascism is closer to Mussolini's ideology.

 

[Varda]

Norsefire:

You are making an awful lot of outlandish claims which run wholly contrary to the findings of ethology, behavioral ecology, and animal cognition studies.

I don't have time to get into it right now, as I need to go out and do some crap, but look up Donald Griffin, Marc Bekoff, Jane Goodall, Konrad Lorenz, the "mirror test" (which is intrinsically flawed by virtue of it's sole reliance upon the sense of sight, but is still valuable nonetheless), etc.

Do we really have to go as profoundly as that to decide what we can kill and eat?

It's pretty straightforward. You are hungry. You kill. You eat.

Hell, I'll eat you if I'm hungry enough.

 

[Varda]

Thus late, they [livestock] have not displayed the ability to reason; they have not displayed an awareness of their own mortality; they have not displayed 'culture'; etc, etc

They have not displayed anything comparable to human sapience.

Does it even matter if what you are eating used to have a mind or not? Once you kill them, the mind is gone.
Haven't we evolved as a species that kills to eat?

I would find killing a sapient AI much more immoral than a mindless chicken.

Why?

I know there are plenty of vegans that have problems with protein, B12, etc

Why don't they just take a supplement? I used to take cobamamide for apetite stimulation, it's quite affordable.
Also, if you're not one of these batshit insane people that don't eat anything that comes from an animal, B12 can also be found in eggs and milk, so you don't have to kill anything to get B12.

 

[Enmos]

Only few animals can qualify as "persons"........dolphins, perhaps dogs and cats, and other primates. Maybe a few others.

If you consider cats and dogs to be "persons", then there are A LOT of other animals that qualify !

 

[Enmos]

They have not displayed anything comparable to human sapience.

So now they have to match human sapience all of a sudden ? :bugeye:

Are we back at 'humans are better because they are humans' ?

 

[parmalee]

Thus late, they [livestock] have not displayed the ability to reason; they have not displayed an awareness of their own mortality; they have not displayed 'culture'; etc, etc

They have not displayed anything comparable to human sapience.

Your conclusions are based solely upon your own observations? How scientific is that?

Ahhh, perhaps it is time for a little allegory from the Far East--actually, it's from an episode of the original Kung Fu t.v. series, starring the late, great David Carradine:

Master Kwan walks through the streets of the village with young Kwai-Chang Caine. He draws Caine's attention to a curious old man who is wandering about, seemingly picking up little pebbles from the ground at random. Master Kwan asks Caine for his assessment of the old man. Caine responds, "Why, I believe he is rather a dullard, Master Kwan."

The next day, Master Kwan takes Caine into the village again. He directs Caine to the sight of the old man standing near to a well. Upon closer examination, Caine discovers that the old man is carefully placing pebbles into various spots about the well. Why, the old man is creating a lovely mosaic!

Seriously, you can't make sweeping claims about the minds of others from but a few of your own casual observations. Neither can you make such generalizations for the entire (or most of the) animal kingdom.

[livestock] have not displayed the ability to reason;

On what do you base this? Supposition. Certainly not research, lest you would not have made this claim. I'm not sure that there's much point in citing innumerable studies or texts which compile these studies, as you'll persist with this claim regardless.

they have not displayed an awareness of their own mortality;

Cognizence of one's own mortality is not the same as self-awareness, and neither is the former a pre-condition for the latter. Self-awareness is simply consciousness of self. The mirror test has been used to demonstrate self-awareness for many species: primates, cetacea, elephants, certain birds. However, it is intrinsically flawed in that it is biased towards those with excellent visual acuity (are blind people not self-aware?). Different models for the other senses (olfactory, hearing) have proved more inclusive, yet the test is still rather limited in scope and hardly conclusive.

As to cognizence of one's own mortality, that has long been disputed: how does one go about adequately establishing whether or not a being contemplates death? Certainly, awareness of the death (or dying) of others has long been established: elephants gather around a dying elephant and tend to her needs until she passes; subsequently they mourn the loss of their compat through ceremonial behaviors.

they have not displayed 'culture';

How are you defining "culture"? If by "culture" you mean a shared set of behaviors, rites, and ambitions amongst a socially structured group, then I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at. A social organization which eats together, sleeps together, hunts together, establishes roles and hierarchies for it's members, etc. is a culture, right? And animals don't do that? Or by "culture," do you mean the making of art, music, philosophy, etc.? If so, that one's already been covered elsewhere (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2315470&postcount=28)

What next? Tools? (Please don't say "yes"--I'm sure (I hope) that you know by now that that one was disproved long ago.)

They have not displayed anything comparable to human sapience.

You're absolutely right about that: non-human animals typically exhibit a vastly greater degree of sapience than their human cousins. They take care of themselves and each other; they tend not to hunt (or decimate in some other fashion) other species (animal or otherwise) into extinction (excepting in those weird circumstances in which they are nearly compelled as a result of human stupidity); and neither are they inclined enslave, oppress, or exterminate millions or billions of their own kind so that they can have cheaply made shit and drive their massive vehicles--which they need because they are MORBIDLY obese--1/4 mile down the road to the convenience store for a pack of twinkies. That's sapience. Again, this has already been addressed elsewhere.

They have to posess personality and imagination.

Oh, c'mon! Are you absolutely certain that you've encountered an animal before?

 

[Thoreau]

Geez, this has got to be the longest running thread I've created. Hope you guys are havin fun!

 

[Norsefire]

If you consider cats and dogs to be "persons", then there are A LOT of other animals that qualify !

I don't consider them to be persons, I simply acknowledge that their sentience is very present

Parmalee: animals are still a long ways off. There are many other human qualities that animals seemingly do not posess

1) Planning for the future, ambition, etc
2) An appreciation for the finer points in life
3) etc

Most animals are just instinct, nothing more.

 

[James R]

Geez, this has got to be the longest running thread I've created. Hope you guys are havin fun!

You obviously haven't seen the Star Wars vs. Star Trek thread.

 

[Enmos]

I don't consider them to be persons, I simply acknowledge that their sentience is very present

Parmalee: animals are still a long ways off. There are many other human qualities that animals seemingly do not posess

1) Planning for the future, ambition, etc
2) An appreciation for the finer points in life
3) etc

Most animals are just instinct, nothing more.

So animals will have to be humans before they can expect any respect from you.

 

[parmalee]

I don't consider them to be persons, I simply acknowledge that their sentience is very present

Parmalee: animals are still a long ways off. There are many other human qualities that animals seemingly do not posess

1) Planning for the future, ambition, etc
2) An appreciation for the finer points in life
3) etc

Most animals are just instinct, nothing more.

And how are you defining instinct? Definitions vary both within fields and between individuals within fields. Simply intrinsically predisposed behaviors and drives, or intrinsically predisposed behaviors and drives that cannot be circumvented. If the former, all animals are equally instinctual; if the latter, well, again all animals are pretty much equally instinctual: one can learn to not act upon an instinct--humans and non-humans.

Or are you suggesting that those who choose to not act upon more instincts are somehow superior? So a Catholic Priest is vastly superior to the rest of us because he chooses to act against his sexual drive, right? That is, unless he simply redirects his sexual behavior to adolescent boys.