Norsefire:
So why not eat them? Let's set up some factory farms for human beings. What do you say?
Technically we could; but that would be immoral, from my perspective.
You keep telling me what you find moral or immoral, but you never given reasons. Is it that your moral position is just based on your desires from moment to moment, or on "gut feelings", and nothing better than that? If so, I don't know how you hope to convince anybody else that your position is right in a moral argument. All you have to offer is "I think this is what's right, but I have no good reason why I think that."
We don't have to prey on cows.
But we do, and we (Humanity) are not harmed by it.
They (cows) are harmed by it. (You're going round and round in circles here. You'd be better off addressing my actual arguments rather than trying to say that because something is done it must be right.)
Why do we have to care about our own species?
We don't.
But you said we did. Ok, you've changed your mind again. It's hard when you're so inconsistent, changing your opinions from second to second.
If a cannibal wanted to eat your mother, would that be ok? If they were really hungry?
No, because I do not want him to eat my mother and it would be against her will.
Why wouldn't you want him to eat your mother? If he's hungry and you have no problem with cannibalism...
As for her will, do you think that what a being wants is relevant when it comes to eating it? Or is it only relevant when it's your mother?
Why is what a cow wants not relevant when you want to eat it, and yet what your mother wants is relevant when somebody wants to eat her? Aren't you being inconsistent again?
The "why" is irrelevant; I simply do.
In other words, you can't give any good reason for why you give human beings special treatment over other species. You just do. That's a fairly poor basis for a moral position, don't you think?
You're saying they have "personhood". I don't agree.
Do 1 week old human children have personhood? If you think they do, then explain to me what feature gives them personhood that a 3 year old cow does not have.
No, I'm not. I have no problems with voluntary cannibalism, because it is voluntary.
So if a cow doesn't volunteer to be eaten, you won't eat it? Or does your voluntary thing only apply to humans?
No, you're looking at it incorrectly. Not doing something doesn't result in anything.
Rubbish. Omitting to do something can be just as harmful (or more harmful) than doing something.
Ah that's right, for the same reason we have the right to eat them: because we're able to, and it benefits us.
A cannibal is able to kill and eat your mother, and it would provide him with sustenance, so I don't see why you have any problems with that.
I know what it is; however you were defending roaches on the basis that it's bad to kill them because of the consequences on the environment, and not for the same reason that you defended livestock.
Actually, I said we can discuss roaches later, once we've sorted out the livestock issue. The reason is that the sentience and consciousness of roaches is more questionable than that of, say, cows.
Because we do that for all human beings, and there's no meaningful difference between humans and non-human animals such as cows to deny them equal consideration in terms of basic respect for a right to be regarded as intrinsically valuable.
They're not valuable to us, apart from being food. And there's a huge difference between cows and human beings: human beings have egos, and culture, and the capacity to understand the concept of self and individualism as well as morality, as well as the capacity to understand and alter our own evolution.
Your talk of value to us is begging the question - assuming they have no value because you assume they have no value. That's a circular argument - useless.
As for egos, culture, the capacity to understand the concept of self, etc., infant human children don't have any of those things, but I don't see you advocating factory farms for children. Why not?
Cows and sheep certainly have a concept of "self". Or, at least, you haven't shown anything to suggest otherwise.
I know they're conscious but I doubt they are self aware in the same way you and I are.
Oh? How do you know that I am self aware in the same way you are? In fact, how do you know that any other human being is self aware in the same way you are?
By ego I refer to the sense of oneself as a unique individual. Very few animals have been observed to display this sort of behavior, and to the best of my knowledge no livestock have (only certain primates and a select other creatures).
I disagree. Have you ever owned a dog or a cat? Are you really expecting me to believe that it did not have a sense of itself as a unique individual? Did you ever spend any time with it?
I'm not undermining the importance of morals, I'm only pointing out that they are subjective. Therefore what matters is consensus
This is an argument for another thread. Clearly the objective aspects of morals have not yet got through to you. We can work on your problem in a different thread.
It's the reality; what alternative do you propose? What good is your good if your good is powerless? If nobody is technically right then it comes down to power.
I thought we had discussed this one before, too. Take it to another thread if you want to rehash this one.
Who do you include, and why? You have yet to explain and justify yourself.
Human beings, because the survival of other human beings has a profound effect on my own survival and the survival of my kind.
Human beings do not need to eat meat to survive.
But people have stopped eating meat.
People have also become nudists and cultists.
Try to keep up. I did not claim that people could never become nudists or cultists. You did claim that people could never become vegetarian.
Vegetarianism is a minority and one that I honeslty think will never become a majority [out of moral reasons]
So what? Who cares? That's not what this discussion is about. Try to focus on the topic, please.
An equivalent formulation of the idea that humans cannot be treated solely as the resources of others is to say that we recognise that all human beings, regardless of their personal characteristics, have inherent value beyond their value as a resource for other people. This is sometimes called the inherent or intrinsic value concept. Recognition of intrinsic value means we have a right not to be treated as a thing, but as a person. Things, as opposed to persons, only have extrinsic value - they are only valuable in so far as somebody else regards them as a valuable resource. Persons have intrinsic value.
Yes and no. All humans value themselves; although not all humans value other humans. And a person can be both a person and a thing.
Do you think human slavery is acceptable, then?
Now, consider animal rights. The Principle of Equal Consideration says that if we are going to take animal interests seriously...
Who said we are going to take animal interests seriously? Our interests come first and foremost.
Why? You keep saying this, but its just empty opinion. If you have no reason for your point of view, then why should anybody listen to you?
Either animal interests are morally significant, or animals are merely things which have no moral status
The latter, to the human animal.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying human beings have no moral status?
But this is simply begging the question. The issue here is to name a characteristic that ALL humans possess but which animals do not, which justifies us giving rights to all humans but to no animals. Pretending that all humans have a particular characteristic when some in fact do not, and when some animals may in fact possess the characteristic, doesn't overcome the inconsistencies of this argument
Here's a characteristic: we're all the same species. Arbitrarily, we decide to grant members of the human species rights, as it collectively improves our comfort (supposedly); arbitrarily, we decide not to give non-humans these same rights.
You use the word "arbitrarily" twice here. An arbitrary choice is no ground for a moral system when there are better principles on offer (such as the principle of equal consideration).
Your position is what is called "speciesism". Like sexism and racism, it is not a position arrived at by reason, but purely by self interest and unthinking prejudice.
Consciousness, in turn, requires an "I" to have the subjective experience of pain.
No. That is self-awareness.
You're splitting hairs. We could argue on the question of "what is consciousness?" in another thread if you like.
Right, but plants are still alive; the relevance of this is that living things want to keep living, even if they cannot understand death or feel pain.
You think plants want things, do you? How about a cow, then? Could it want not to be killed and eaten, do you think?
There is no evidence that plants are an "I" which is conscious of itself as an ongoing entity.
Nor is there such evidence that livestock are the same. I do not think livestock contemplate the future or contemplate their own death - this is almost exclusively a human thing.
I disagree completely. And I doubt you've gone looking for any evidence, because finding some would be far too inconvenient for you. It would challenge your ready assumptions and prejudices.
