Recall where this thread started:
The very first reply:
and a few posts later:
These reponses don't sound much like "live and let live" to me. They sound like defensive meat eaters having the usual knee-jerk response.
Actually, I don't need to justify my meat-eating. I'm defending it because you're attacking it, calling it "immoral" and ignoring the obvious reality: animals eat other animals. It's simply the way our food web works; we eat everything. And other animals eat certain other animals; we're just on top, you see?
Nobody stops eating meat on hearing about factory farms? Thanks for letting me know, Lucysnow.
Plenty of people do; but you can oppose factory farming and not oppose eating meat. The latter is absurd. I don't care if you're a vegetarian if you just don't like meat; that's fine. There's foods I don't like and so I won't touch. But don't call it immoral, because it's not, and your morality is not any better than the morality of the overwhelming majority in favor of meat eating.
Norsefire:
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."
Of course I do. My position is that
human well-being and comfort is the goal; therefore, all that furthers
human well-being and comfort is good. It could be argued that establishing factory farms for human meat could, in theory, further the well-being and comfort of human beings...but doing so also results in the suffering of some human beings when entirely unnecessary as there are other species to eat, that are eaten anyway.
I mean, seriously, if we're not eating cattle, they're still going to be eaten by something.
They (cows) are harmed by it.
Right, but I don't care about the cows; and living things are harmed all the time. This is food, and food is not wrong. We're simply at the top of the chain.
There's a food web; it even has the egotistical bears! Humans are the highest predators, though, even though they're not on this web.
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.
No, I said we did care, not that we did have to. We don't
have to do anything. Humans just tend to care about one another, in the interest of human survival and well-being.
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?
It's relevant when it's a human. Respect for human life is a foundation of human rights, therefore it is important to uphold a respect for human life; respecting human life, however, doesn't mean we must worship other creatures.
Of course, "respect for human life" is, in my opinion, only important under certain circumstances (for instance, it isn't necessary when executing a criminal, because they forfeit their rights).
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?
No, see above. It is arbitrary; but it's drawn on a clear distinction: they're not human.
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?
I give them special treatment because they're members of my species and their well-being is tied to mine. The well-being of cattle is not.
Do 1 week old human children have personhood?
Not on the same level that you or I have as developed adults.
If you think they do, then explain to me what feature gives them personhood that a 3 year old cow does not have.
3 year old human children probably have greater intelligence and consciousness than 3 year old cows anyway, but again this is irrelevant; the 3 year old human is HUMAN!
Does a bear mother care more about her bear children or the children of cattle?
So if a cow doesn't volunteer to be eaten, you won't eat it? Or does your voluntary thing only apply to humans?
Only to humans; cows cannot "volunteer" to do anything, they lack the capacity.
Rubbish. Omitting to do something can be just as harmful (or more harmful) than doing something.
Again you make a mistake: omitting means deleting. Deleting is an affirmative action; I'm talking about a non-action, not doing anything. There is no result of a non-action. Animal experimentation is unnecessary; not doing the experimentation doesn't result in losing knowledge, it results in not gaining knowledge. However, it is still unnecessary and thus always wrong.
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.
His interests conflict with mine; therefore, as the majority is on my side, I will defend my interests as such. The interests of cattle conflict with ours; therefore, we will use our superior intelligence to make our interests come first.
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.
Roaches feel pain; roaches want to live. Therefore killing them is wrong... is basically what you are saying...
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.
I don't assume anything. Value is not objective; things only have value if we give them value. A diamond's value is not objective; in a desert, one might find a cup of water more valuable than a diamond.
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?
Why eat [and harm] humans when all humans can be comfortable and just eat other species? We're predators. Why won't bear mothers eat their children? They can eat other creatures seeing as they are predators! You see?
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?
I don't, but then you're defeating both of our arguments. If we don't know anything, why even bother discussing this? The difference between you and cattle, however, is that you are intelligent and are able to communicate your self-awareness.
I disagree. Have you ever owned a dog or a cat?
I'd guess they are more intelligent than chickens. And yes, in Syria I had two cats, I had chicks (pets, not food), I had goldfish (by the way, is eating fish immoral?)
Are you really expecting me to believe that it did not have a sense of itself as a unique individual?
We're not even discussing livestock; and at any rate, no, not to the extent that human beings have. For instance, they cannot contemplate their own deaths; this is central to humanity as this is a basis for much religion and literature. We can imagine life after life because we understand that we die. Why? Because we are self-aware, and aware of time, and aware of our environments. For a sense of self, all of these things are important.
This is an argument for another thread. Clearly the objective aspects of morals have not yet got through to you.
Yes they have, and we've discussed this to death; there are influences on morals, but ultimately morals can be interpreted and subjected in many ways and thus are subjective.
We can work on your problem in a different thread.
The recognition of truth is a problem?
Human beings do not need to eat meat to survive.
Neither do bears. We don't need TV's to survive either; by making TV's, we're diverting resources and thus likely something will die as a result. Actually, that could be better applied to paper, and wood.
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.
No, I said that I find it unlikely that society will ever become vegetarian in a majority.
Do you think human slavery is acceptable, then?
No, because the well-being of humans is important to me.
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?
If humanity is better off as a whole, the chances for survival and comfort for the individual improve; humanity being better off as a whole is important. Therefore we must pursue this goal.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying human beings have no moral status?
What does this mean? Human beings among human beings have a mechanism called morality that influences human interaction.
Human beings, to wolves, are tasty treats.
Human beings, to chickens, are predators and the chickens are tasty treats.
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).
Why are your principles better?
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.
This is ridiculous! You're talking about a different species, for Pete's sake! And not even an intelligent one!
You're splitting hairs. We could argue on the question of "what is consciousness?" in another thread if you like.
However the answer to that question is relevant.
You think plants want things, do you? How about a cow, then? Could it want not to be killed and eaten, do you think?
If it understood that concept. Cows don't know they're going to be killed and eaten, for one.
Secondly, ok, so if you're right and it's immoral, then SO IS eating plants! It doesn't matter if they feel pain or not, because they're alive and all life wants to keep living.
Lastly, if pain is all that is in your assesment of whether or not meat-eating is moral, then as I said we can keep the animals in an unconscious state, or put them on free range farms where they can be free and when the time comes we can give them a painless death.
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.
What other species are aware of their own mortality, or contemplate an afterlife?
