When is killing animals right?

[Raido]

Why don't you give all your money to charity? You can live without the luxury that you buy, just as we can live without meat, but you don't. Very hypocritical of you. The reason why you don't sell your stuff and donate all the money is because you enjoy it. And we enjoy eating meat. We enjoy it more than just eating bread and water. You could also ask humanity to stop reproducing, this would also reduce world hunger. There are other ways to achieve that, and we would rather use the other ways. In other words, meat production is not the reason the world hunger.
It's true that meat production is cruel and wasteful. And we should do something about it. We should eat less meat and treat the animals we eat better overall. But this is not a reason to stop eating animals.

And I don't get how we protect animals if we don't eat them. If we stop eating animals, the very same animals will just never exist in the first place, so I don't really get your point here...

 

[LarsINTJ]

Contrary to what most people seem to believe, ethics are not subjective, nor is a god necessary for any sort of objective code.

Firstly, ethics can only apply to beings who possess a level of sentience on par or greater than humans (persons). There are good reasons for this, but it involves delving into the notion of free will and property rights, and those are full-blown debates in themselves. In short, Lesser animals are exclusively 'input - output' instinctual robots, whereas humans are able to project possible future scenarios and choose between them accordingly. Obviously the exact point at which an animal's brain capacity enables their personhood is somewhat uncertain, but humans are far enough over that line to notice a clear distinction between both sides.

Essentially - to be good, you must possess the ability or potential ability to choose to be good. Ethics are impossible without free-will.

Secondly, the fulfillment of an ethical propositions must apply to all persons at all times. This immediately invalidates positive action as part of any ethical code.
E.g. The proposition 'Killing lesser animals is morally correct' simultaneously claims that 'Not killing lesser animals is morally wrong' (refer to the 'three laws of logic' for an explanation as to why) condemning everyone who isn't currently in the act of killing an animal as evil. Of course, this inevitably means that anyone who lacks animals to kill or suffers the inability to do so is automatically labelled evil despite an absence of choice.

Consequently we find that ethical propositions must never affirm positive action, but rather outline what not to do.

There's a difference between 'It is wrong to murder' and 'It is wrong to kill lesser animals': Murder vs. kill

the term 'murder' only applies when one moral agent takes the life of another moral agent against their will and where they could choose otherwise. Whether it is wrong to kill another person is actually irrelevant because there are many different reasons for such a thing to occur and not all of them involve choice or a denial of will. As has been suggested, lesser animals are not moral agents, so it is actually impossible to murder one.

Thus killing a lesser animal has no moral implications in and of itself because they do not possess personhood. It's a neutral action so long as no other persons are involved (e.g. killing somebody else's pet against their will or if it would jeopardize another's safety).

So does that mean it is perfectly acceptable to kill an animal for no reason? Not exactly. Many other humans would consider it needlessly cruel behavior and thus exclude you from their circle of interaction. Also keep in mind that cruelty exists in nature regardless, the wilderness is a pretty terrible place without the shelter of technology.

 

[Rabbattack]

Why don't you give all your money to charity? You can live without the luxury that you buy, just as we can live without meat, but you don't. Very hypocritical of you. The reason why you don't sell your stuff and donate all the money is because you enjoy it. And we enjoy eating meat. We enjoy it more than just eating bread and water. You could also ask humanity to stop reproducing, this would also reduce world hunger. There are other ways to achieve that, and we would rather use the other ways. In other words, meat production is not the reason the world hunger.
It's true that meat production is cruel and wasteful. And we should do something about it. We should eat less meat and treat the animals we eat better overall. But this is not a reason to stop eating animals.

And I don't get how we protect animals if we don't eat them. If we stop eating animals, the very same animals will just never exist in the first place, so I don't really get your point here...

The facts say that we would have more food and water without meat, as killing animals is more wasteful than growing crops. They won't fade out of existence, they just live naturally in the wild. Freeing all the animals at once is a bad idea. I would rather have them stop breeding instead. They existed before in the wild without us, why can't they do it again. I'm not saying that meat is the ultimate reason for world hunger, their are plenty of other things, but this is a big reason. I'm not from rich people, I'm just a kid and I only buy about one or two games a year. Everyone is a hypocrite, so don't think I'm blind to this topic just because I live in a first world country. If anything you have more money to give away, so don't look down on me. I'm pretty sure my outdated games and broken used phones don't kill living creatures like meat does.

Meat causes pain, death, and wastes resources, what's not to get about it.

I'm not in the position to be donating to charity, maybe when I get a JOB and finish SCHOOL, I'll donate my excess money.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Meat causes pain, death, and wastes resources, what's not to get about it.

Compared to what?

Do you think all those livestock animals would have a jolly-good time being perpetually hunted by packs of wolves and the like? What about an entire herd falling victim to some terrible illness or parasite? Nature outside of captivity is hardly paradise.

If people are so concerned about the experience of pain, death and wasted resources then we should be addressing human conflicts before obsessing over other animals.

Hey, I agree that what humans are doing is horrifyingly excessive when it comes to meat production, but there's a contemporary explanation - modern meat production is heavily subsidized by government - it is has become extremely profitable for farmers/distributors. Meat was an occasional food in the past because it was (and still is) so darn costly to produce and thus very expensive to purchase. In other words, our growing meat addiction is fed by what is taken from us through taxation to serve various political interests.

We evolved with meat in our diet, it is an effective means of acquiring many necessary nutrients, but hunter-gathers were not able to eat meat every single day, it was probably once a week or less.

 

[Rabbattack]

Compared to what?

Do you think all those livestock animals would have a jolly-good time being perpetually hunted by packs of wolves and the like? What about an entire herd falling victim to some terrible illness or parasite? Nature outside of captivity is hardly paradise.

If people are so concerned about the experience of pain, death and wasted resources then we should be addressing human conflicts before obsessing over other animals.

Hey, I agree that what humans are doing is horrifyingly excessive when it comes to meat production, but there's a contemporary explanation - modern meat production is heavily subsidized by government - it is has become extremely profitable for farmers/distributors. Meat was an occasional food in the past because it was (and still is) so darn costly to produce and thus very expensive to purchase. In other words, our growing meat addiction is fed by what is taken from us through taxation to serve various political interests.

We evolved with meat in our diet, it is an effective means of acquiring many necessary nutrients, but hunter-gathers were not able to eat meat every single day, it was probably once a week or less.

I'm not saying they would have the greatest time outside. It would be more humane to let them die on their own means, not having to die once they reach adulthood. I know that there are still other things to kill them out there, but it would be much better than in a slaughter house. We are not like other animals, we have evolved into a higher level of thinking and should use that ability to better the world and act in the best interest for ourselves and other living things. In a first world country you don't need to eat meat at all unless all you can afford is McDonalds. I'm not telling anyone to give animals full rights, as that would be absurd, but to stop needlessly killing them. I'm pretty sure this would be a step in the right direction. Get rid of a less needed food and in return receive more crops and water. I would much rather see the meat industry crumble, being replaced by the production of more crops. Sometimes animals need to die for ourselves to advance, but not like this. I could see animals dying for research more justified than meat, but with a little more human involvement in experiments, as animals are no perfect substitute for humans. The end. I know my diet is better than the worthless piles of fat I see everyday. Until I get into a better position to help, I'll start with being vegetarian and maybe take off other foods as the years go.

 

[Sucumbio]

the whole "not eating meat would save crops and water" is a gross exaggeration. Climate change has almost definitely resulted in loss of crops far quicker than stopping meat eating in America would increase them. Sure you can justify "saving" feed and irrigation of fields because you don't have tons of cows to nourish, but that doesn't suddenly mean the planet will stop being a greenhouse and allowing for all those extra crops to grow. Quite the opposite, you'd end up having a lot more land available to turn to arid dust bowl. No, ceasing to eat meat as a nation would really impact nothing except the lives of countless Americans.

And now that you mention it, what OF the people who are so poor all they can afford is McDonald's. Weekly specials like the "pick 5" at the grocer, you can grab 5 packages of meat all approx 1-2 pounds in weight of various variety, and all for 20 bucks. Inexpensive, healthy choices. It's about how you prepare food, too, not just the food itself. Granted meat eaters should choose leaner cuts of meet, not fry meet, etc, etc, but that's irrelevant to a vegetarian.

And thank you for someone finally acknowledging the difficulty in assign human morals to animals. ><

I still think the whole "movement" is predicated upon the notion that animals suffer and that's somehow "wrong" so we should stop doing it. 1.) How exactly are they suffering? It's not like we kill them slowly. In Maine I've visited a slaughterhouse that my friend owned, and basically they herd the cow into a stall, and shoot in in the back of the head. Death is instant. No suffering there, really. Maybe they're not all like that... maybe THAT is a cause worth getting behind. Also what's this about you'd rather see lab animals than food animals? Seriously? Lab experiments ARE horrible. The animals are subjected to all kinds of painful experiments. Today's computer technology is great enough that you could almost get away with not even doing animal trials. It's groups like the FDA, whose outdated criterion mandate that medicines have to pass "live" trials at the animal then human level.

I see nothing wrong with someone making the personal choice to abstain from eating meat, for whatever reason. I see a big problem with someone expecting everyone to just give it up too, as if you can somehow teach empathy, train "fellow feelings." Not everyone is as sensitive. And not every vegetarian chooses to be one because of animal suffering. The science behind a healthy diet demands the elimination of red meat, for instance, as it leads to high cholesterol and heart disease. Why don't I use this as an excuse? Cause I intend to continue eating meat, in all forms, and varieties, and preparations, regardless of the consequences to my health. That is MY personal choice. And until my doing so hurts another person (which it won't) I see no reason to discontinue (yes I am an altruist, but only in regards to other people, not for all living creatures.)

 

[Rabbattack]

the whole "not eating meat would save crops and water" is a gross exaggeration. Climate change has almost definitely resulted in loss of crops far quicker than stopping meat eating in America would increase them. Sure you can justify "saving" feed and irrigation of fields because you don't have tons of cows to nourish, but that doesn't suddenly mean the planet will stop being a greenhouse and allowing for all those extra crops to grow. Quite the opposite, you'd end up having a lot more land available to turn to arid dust bowl. No, ceasing to eat meat as a nation would really impact nothing except the lives of countless Americans.

And now that you mention it, what OF the people who are so poor all they can afford is McDonald's. Weekly specials like the "pick 5" at the grocer, you can grab 5 packages of meat all approx 1-2 pounds in weight of various variety, and all for 20 bucks. Inexpensive, healthy choices. It's about how you prepare food, too, not just the food itself. Granted meat eaters should choose leaner cuts of meet, not fry meet, etc, etc, but that's irrelevant to a vegetarian.

And thank you for someone finally acknowledging the difficulty in assign human morals to animals. ><

I still think the whole "movement" is predicated upon the notion that animals suffer and that's somehow "wrong" so we should stop doing it. 1.) How exactly are they suffering? It's not like we kill them slowly. In Maine I've visited a slaughterhouse that my friend owned, and basically they herd the cow into a stall, and shoot in in the back of the head. Death is instant. No suffering there, really. Maybe they're not all like that... maybe THAT is a cause worth getting behind. Also what's this about you'd rather see lab animals than food animals? Seriously? Lab experiments ARE horrible. The animals are subjected to all kinds of painful experiments. Today's computer technology is great enough that you could almost get away with not even doing animal trials. It's groups like the FDA, whose outdated criterion mandate that medicines have to pass "live" trials at the animal then human level.

I see nothing wrong with someone making the personal choice to abstain from eating meat, for whatever reason. I see a big problem with someone expecting everyone to just give it up too, as if you can somehow teach empathy, train "fellow feelings." Not everyone is as sensitive. And not every vegetarian chooses to be one because of animal suffering. The science behind a healthy diet demands the elimination of red meat, for instance, as it leads to high cholesterol and heart disease. Why don't I use this as an excuse? Cause I intend to continue eating meat, in all forms, and varieties, and preparations, regardless of the consequences to my health. That is MY personal choice. And until my doing so hurts another person (which it won't) I see no reason to discontinue (yes I am an altruist, but only in regards to other people, not for all living creatures.)

Lol, I like adding stupid things in my sentences for no reason.

Lab experiments = Bad
Not unless the said experiment actually had a good point and other means like your "computer" wouldn't work. A good point like preventing cancer or Alzheimer's, no stupid pointless tests. Using humans would be much more effective than throwing a rat or monkey in there. How many slaughter houses have you visited? Do you know what goes on elsewhere. You shouldn't make one experience decide for you what goes on everywhere. Are people really going to shoot a cow in the back of the head every time? No, it is cheaper to just slit it's throat and cut it up wherever it would be killed efficiently. Either way those lands where the slaughter houses were could still be used for other things, maybe even for more crops. I'm pretty sure we are advanced enough to turn that dust bowl into fertile land, as long as the slaughter house isn't somewhere to hard for the crops. Even if we don't replace the slaughter houses with crop growing lands we'd still have the plenty of water and food we wasted on animals. What don't you people get about 70% of crops and half the water? Those are facts and you can't deny that we'd have more if we'd just stop. I need to know where most slaughter houses are located to determine if the land there can grow crops.

 

[Brother AJ]

Okay, now I feel we’re getting somewhere. I believe I better understand where you’re coming from now.

I put these together because I take issue with these statements in the same way. Animals are not deserving of anything special. Nor are humans. We make a decision as a society to respect one another. We cannot enter into such a contract with animals because they lack the ability to do so. Therefore, it is up to us to decide if an animal is deserving of our protection. In other words we decide for them. In the instance of farm-raised meat, the decision is simple. We've decided to breed animals so that we may eat them. The only reason(s) you've given why this should be stopped center on the idea of "animal suffering." "Humane" ways of harvesting meat have been devised in order to 1.) speed the process 2.) placate unusually sensitive individuals such as yourself 3.) increase productivity. I mean no offense, of course.

Empathy toward fellow humans is hard enough without trying to find people that share empathy with non-human lifeforms, be they trees, plants, animals, birds fish or even insects. The point is that you should acknowledge your stance as being one based not in a position of logic, but that of emotion.

I am not suggesting that animals should receive “special” treatment, but merely that their interests be considered equally, or, in other words, that similar situations ought to be treated, well, similarly. The problem here, of course, seems to be that you and many others are skeptical of the similarities between humans and other animals, but these doubts are not supported by science. I will elaborate on said science in a moment.

I’m not sure if your criticism is that I’m letting my emotions skew my judgment into thinking other animals are similar to humans, or that’s unreasonable to take a stance based on emotion in general. Let me address the latter first. It doesn’t particularly bother me to let my emotions fuel my thinking, at least partially. Emotion is involved within all moral arguments, and it is unlikely that we would be so passionate about various human rights issues without it. We obviously do not have some sort of objective obligation to care for and protect humans, but we do so anyway because we are able to identify with them.

There IS logic involved within morals though such as applying one’s beliefs consistently. This is where the field of ethics comes into play. Be it deontology, utilitarianism, or contractualism we use these ethical theories to better understand how we ought to treat those that are around us.

You actually seem to use a form of contractualism within your own post. I can’t say that I’m fond of this particular theory. It allows one to take rather extreme positions such as there nothing problematic with blow torching a stray dog on the street, because we decide how to treat those that can’t enter a contract, correct? Respecting another’s rights is an important aspect of morality, but what is even more important, I suggest, is protecting those that are vulnerable within our world or that are unable to speak for themselves. What of the permanently ******** or insane that also cannot consent to contracts? Are we allowed to treat these sorts of humans however we please? I would suggest that there is no defensible way to justify harming these sorts of individuals unless they are physically endangering our own lives, and this includes other animals.

I’d also like to speak briefly about the matter of subjective morality before I move on. There is certainly no way to objectively prove that we ought to promote the well being of society and individuals instead of suffering, but we also can’t show without a doubt that one must use evidence and logic to arrive at conclusions. That is to say, some things are really just common sense.

You have assigned a very human trait (duress, suffering, etc.) to another species without any way of knowing how similar the physical states are. If the cows were so horrified of their existence, they'd say so. But they don't. They've been bred into a relatively short life with one purpose, which is become our food. I know it sounds horrible but there's no precedent for it to be considered as such. Not without expecting me to be believe that cows are more human that we realize. I cannot justify your stance just because cows have two eyes like we do, etc. Perhaps if you could give me a reason to bring an end to the meat industry that DIDN'T center on the suffering of animals, we could get somewhere.

It has been shown numerous times that the other animals of this Earth possess behavioral, chemical, and structural features that we also see in human beings. We have all been evolving side by side for millions of years, and, as a result, have developed countless similarities such as possessing the same organs and bodily systems. This is especially true when we consider vertebrae such as mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, etc. It was Charles Darwin who said that the differences between us and other animals are of degree rather than kind, and I believe this makes sense seeing as we most likely all share a common evolutionary ancestor.

Your comment about a cow’s suffering being absent due to them not objecting to it is just ridiculous. Obviously they do not communicate in all of the same ways that we do, but they are able to do things such as groan, express negative body language, cry out, flinch, struggle, and flee that can give us a relatively reasonable idea of what they are experiencing because this is how many humans react to the same stimuli. Suffering and duress are not “human” traits, but animal ones that we ourselves gained from being a part of the animal kingdom, although perhaps you can say that there are more things that cause humans suffering it is certainly not exclusive to our species.

Consider the fact that dairy cows will sometimes cry out for days when they are separated from their calves because the milk they produce is destined for human mouths. Or how about that domestic “farm” animals regularly have their tails docked, teeth pulled, and beaks cut because the intensive conditions of factory farms cause them to become psychotic, where they will bite and peck each other to death, or even sometimes resort to cannibalism.

http://www.newburyportnews.com/loca...o-be-cows-missing-their-calves?mobRedir=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_(animal)#Agricultural_practice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking

The amount of information out there on the topic of animal suffering and cognition is insurmountable, so I hope you don’t expect me to provide information on every animal in existence. I have already posted many links within this thread and in the topic I referred to in my initial post, so I would suggest that you do your own research on the matter if you feel the need to.

Furthermore, we cannot be 100% certain of anyone’s experiences, even if they flat out tell us what they are. They could, after all, be lying or perhaps not fully understand what it is that they’re feeling. This would become even more difficult to determine if we were to come across a strange individual that did not speak the same language as we did. The key is not to KNOW their experiences obviously, but to be reasonably certain of them. We can determine, for example, that most humans feel the same about fear and pain as we do because we witness their BEHAVIORS toward said stimuli and can liken them to our own.

Similarly, we can look toward the behavior of other animals, and if they react as we do in certain situations then we can be REASONBLY certain that they are experiencing what we are experiencing. Even though we can’t be absolutely certain, isn’t it best to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of awarding and protecting rights, just as we would do if we were to encounter a human that we could not communicate with?

Okay, this is together because it's yet another unfathomable reason. Don't do it because I don't have to? Does this mean that every time mankind advances in technology we immediately should stop what it is we were doing? We don't NEED to take boats across the Atlantic anymore, we have planes now. You do see the issue I take with this logic, yes? So how about a reason to stop fishing other than, because it's not necessary anymore. How about a scientific study that says Tom Huck goes to the fishing hole 'round the bend and causes the end of the world. I'd buy that.

Oh and fish is good for you too. "Brain food" as they used to say. A much better alternative to red meat and pork.

You’ll notice that I posted many links that contradicted your own which said that fish can, in fact, suffer and feel pain. Clearly, there is conflicting information to be considered. My point was not that we should refrain from fishing solely due to it being unnecessary, but since it IS unnecessary there is no reason to take the risk that we could be causing these animals great harm.

Well there it is. Your "natural" feelings of empathy. Disgusted by the sight and smell. I never did understand this attitude. I mean, what DO you have to do to "acquire the product." Not a damn thing. Get in the car, go to the store, and buy the ****. Do you have to painstakingly raise them from calves? Herd them into giant warehouses and kill each one, one at a time. Strip them of flesh, carve them of meat and bone, no. None of that. And yet you'll sit back and judge the end result as if you're too good to purchase it because of what it took to get there. You have to be privileged in the first place to think like that.

This isn’t really about me, but what’s not to understand? I am disgusted because these products are the end result of an animal’s life being dominated, controlled, and ended without any regard for what the animals themselves may have wanted. Why would I care about the amount of labor that went into an act I find unjust?

All of us possess privilege to some degree, but it should be noted that nothing is more beneficial in this world than to be born a human being. We do not generally have the risk of being legally raised as livestock, tortured in experiments, or being killed simply because we weren’t born a certain more desirable species.

And no, I'm not afraid to debate. I just didn't want -this- subject to go the way of the Dre. See, a past regular here tried this same topic and his best argument was "Stop the suffering of animals, it's unethical, it's immoral blah blah blah" please. There is no moral or ethical standpoint. Animals are a-moral. They are non-ethical. They are just living breathing creatures who serve no purpose but to propagate so that their link in the chain of life may continue. Wild animals that is. Farm animals? They DO serve a purpose. Their purpose is to be consumed. Do you think it horrifying when animals farm? They may not build like we do, but they still harvest. They conserve for a later day. Entire carcasses can be stored and eaten on for weeks. I think that it's far more valuable to the human to use farms - dedicated locations - than to just let all the animals roam around unchecked. We have cities, we have structures, we have inter-structure, we have civilization. And we have food-growing places that dedicate themselves to meeting the very real need of the populace.

For the record, there is evidence that other animals display what can be called “ethical” behavior, although to a lesser degree:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1079521,00.html

If you are unable to see that one, you can read the full article here - http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/Speciesism/HonorAmongBeasts.htm

Regardless, I can’t understand why other animals must comprehend morality in order to benefit from it. The most vulnerable members of our society such as children and the severely mentally ******** also cannot be said to comprehend morality, and yet we award them protection. Isn’t there something just about protecting those that cannot protect themselves?

As for an animal’s purpose being to “propagate” the same thing can be said about human beings. There is no objective “purpose” in life, but rather this is something we must decide for ourselves. When it comes to domesticated animals as well as many wild animals we decide to CHOOSE their purpose for them, but how is this defensible? Who are we to decide what another’s purpose must be? Are human beings really this arrogant? Animals do more than have sex; they relax, bathe, learn, eat, play, enjoy each other’s company, and just bask within the boundless pleasures that come with being alive. Why not let them have the power to choose their own purpose?

Also, animals need not run around “unchecked”. If a conflict arises between humans and other animals then we will address it, and if lethal force is necessary in a case of self-defense then I see nothing to object to just as I would not say it is wrong to defend yourself from a human attacker.

So you've admitted that people want meat, to the point that an entire industry had to change to meet that need, and you expect all these people to suddenly decide "oh, we don't want that anymore, because all those cows must be suffering so badly, and I feel their plight." Seriously, this is ridiculous. Instead, why not point out how deforestation leads to global warming and THAT is a real issue. Just so we can have burgers. I can get behind this.

(I don't think you're in the wrong, btw. Einstein himself believed we as a species would not truly progress until we stopped eating meat. My issue is your plan of attack. Instead of trying to build empathy in people and appealing to their emotions, try instead to focus on the dangers of eating meat. Categorically prove that allowing the meat industry to continue as it is will lead to irreversible disaster, the same as with the climate change crisis.)

That people don’t want to change is not surprising me. The status quo will always resist radical ideals, and it has been this way for thousands of years. It was and still is difficult to get the privileged in our society to empathize with persons of color and women, but we are able to do so all the same.

Not only does your suggestion of appealing to the environmental damages of eating meat ignore animals as individuals, it also doesn’t make sense in the first place as solution to the abolition of animal agriculture. It is certainly demonstrable that one can still farm animals without contributing so much to climate change and environmental damage, although this would probably still require a drastic reduction in our meat production. There is more to climate change obviously than eating meat, such as our dependence on unsustainable fuel sources and our massively overpopulated species. Needless to say, appealing to environmental consequences is not going to stop the consumption meat or other animal products, so what do we do from there?

Well, social movements in the past were not successful because they asserted that oppression of marginalized groups was contributing to a decline in our environment, but because they made active demands for better treatment and the abolition of harmful practices which created debate within society and eventually lead to social change:

http://fortheabolitionofveganism.blogspot.com/2013/07/great-comic-by-insolente-veggie.html

Why don't you give all your money to charity? You can live without the luxury that you buy, just as we can live without meat, but you don't. Very hypocritical of you. The reason why you don't sell your stuff and donate all the money is because you enjoy it. And we enjoy eating meat.

Well first of all, that someone is being hypocritical certainly doesn’t invalidate any position they may be advocating. Second, how exactly is that hypocritical? You would have to say the same thing about those that don’t give all their money to human charities, yet still advocate that humans be treated fairly and respectfully. There’s a difference between giving everything you can and showing basic respect to other individuals.

We enjoy it more than just eating bread and water.

The implication being that if we didn’t eat meat we’d have nothing else to eat?

It's true that meat production is cruel and wasteful. And we should do something about it. We should eat less meat and treat the animals we eat better overall. But this is not a reason to stop eating animals.

It’s interesting that we can say that killing an animal is in anyway treating that animal correctly. There’s also the issue of using animals in general and dominating their lives when they actually may have interests that exist apart from our own.

And I don't get how we protect animals if we don't eat them. If we stop eating animals, the very same animals will just never exist in the first place, so I don't really get your point here...

Many of these species will survive, and many are already, within the wild. Furthermore, non-existence does not harm anyone, so I don’t see what the problem is with discontinuing the practice of breeding animals for food and other purposes.

Compared to what?


Do you think all those livestock animals would have a jolly-good time being perpetually hunted by packs of wolves and the like? What about an entire herd falling victim to some terrible illness or parasite? Nature outside of captivity is hardly paradise.

Life in general is not a paradise. Not that we would just release these animals into the wild, as that would be irresponsible. Wild animals however have the benefit of controlling their own lives and making their own decisions which I’m sure many would prefer over being “safer”. Humans are constantly knocking at death's door, and, indeed, we die every day. Tomorrow we could be hit by a car, die from pneumonia, choke on a sandwich, murdered by another human, etc. Life is dangerous, and life can be cruel. This is just something we've got to deal with. Just because we understand this though does not permit us to wantonly kill and cause suffering as we see fit. This is lunacy in its most pure sense. We don't have to be the cause of suffering for anyone.

If people are so concerned about the experience of pain, death and wasted resources then we should be addressing human conflicts before obsessing over other animals.

Gawd forbid that we do more than one thing at a time right?

It doesn’t surprise me that you say this either since you seem to believe that other animals are nothing more than “instinctual robots”, despite the fact that this is completely irrational when we are to consider the theory of evolution.

Hey, I agree that what humans are doing is horrifyingly excessive when it comes to meat production, but there's a contemporary explanation - modern meat production is heavily subsidized by government - it is has become extremely profitable for farmers/distributors. Meat was an occasional food in the past because it was (and still is) so darn costly to produce and thus very expensive to purchase. In other words, our growing meat addiction is fed by what is taken from us through taxation to serve various political interests.


We evolved with meat in our diet, it is an effective means of acquiring many necessary nutrients, but hunter-gathers were not able to eat meat every single day, it was probably once a week or less.

Eating less meat would be a great start, but there is ultimately the question of whether we are being just by refusing to allow other animals to make their own choices. By the way, we can also acquire all of those necessary nutrients from non-animal sources.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Lab experiments = Bad
Not unless the said experiment actually had a good point and other means like your "computer" wouldn't work. A good point like preventing cancer or Alzheimer's, no stupid pointless tests. Using humans would be much more effective than throwing a rat or monkey in there.

Okay, so risking manslaughter is preferable to experimenting on rats? Don't get me wrong, if a human really wished to be on the receiving end of a lab experiment then we shouldn't be able to stop them due to some amateurish moral high-horse 'legality'.

This is what I don't understand about animal rights groups: Humans are animals too, surely they would be more concerned about fixing the abuse within their own species before being concerned about... rats. Guess what, whether someone becomes an animal abuser is directly correlated with the degree of neglect/abused they suffered as a child. Empathy for humanity goes a long way, infinitely further than throwing people in prison which only serves to perpetuate the abuse.

If you see somebody "blow-torching a stray dog on the street" - Bro AJ, then that's a clear warning sign for an extremely disturbed individual who is likely to be malicious toward other people as well; It is hardly tolerable, nor should we tolerate the horrible parents who create such a monsters. Yet the random culling of lesser animals is technically not a moral evil, it merely demonstrates a distinct capacity for evil which should be addressed ASAP in the avoidance of repeated misconduct.

How many slaughter houses have you visited?

Yes, I've seen those documentaries on how hellish slaughterhouses are, the image of baby chickens rolling across a conveyor belt is particularly gut-wrenching. I don't purchase much meat, but it's not like refusing to eat when it's served to me accomplishes anything other than making me look like a pretentious git.

What don't you people get about 70% of crops and half the water?

Like I mentioned - regardless of its immense inefficiency, the sheer profits behind mass meat production arose from modern government subsidies.

 

[Rabbattack]

Okay, now I feel we’re getting somewhere. I believe I better understand where you’re coming from now.



I am not suggesting that animals should receive “special” treatment, but merely that their interests be considered equally, or, in other words, that similar situations ought to be treated, well, similarly. The problem here, of course, seems to be that you and many others are skeptical of the similarities between humans and other animals, but these doubts are not supported by science. I will elaborate on said science in a moment.

I’m not sure if your criticism is that I’m letting my emotions skew my judgment into thinking other animals are similar to humans, or that’s unreasonable to take a stance based on emotion in general. Let me address the latter first. It doesn’t particularly bother me to let my emotions fuel my thinking, at least partially. Emotion is involved within all moral arguments, and it is unlikely that we would be so passionate about various human rights issues without it. We obviously do not have some sort of objective obligation to care for and protect humans, but we do so anyway because we are able to identify with them.

There IS logic involved within morals though such as applying one’s beliefs consistently. This is where the field of ethics comes into play. Be it deontology, utilitarianism, or contractualism we use these ethical theories to better understand how we ought to treat those that are around us.

You actually seem to use a form of contractualism within your own post. I can’t say that I’m fond of this particular theory. It allows one to take rather extreme positions such as there nothing problematic with blow torching a stray dog on the street, because we decide how to treat those that can’t enter a contract, correct? Respecting another’s rights is an important aspect of morality, but what is even more important, I suggest, is protecting those that are vulnerable within our world or that are unable to speak for themselves. What of the permanently ******** or insane that also cannot consent to contracts? Are we allowed to treat these sorts of humans however we please? I would suggest that there is no defensible way to justify harming these sorts of individuals unless they are physically endangering our own lives, and this includes other animals.

I’d also like to speak briefly about the matter of subjective morality before I move on. There is certainly no way to objectively prove that we ought to promote the well being of society and individuals instead of suffering, but we also can’t show without a doubt that one must use evidence and logic to arrive at conclusions. That is to say, some things are really just common sense.



It has been shown numerous times that the other animals of this Earth possess behavioral, chemical, and structural features that we also see in human beings. We have all been evolving side by side for millions of years, and, as a result, have developed countless similarities such as possessing the same organs and bodily systems. This is especially true when we consider vertebrae such as mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, etc. It was Charles Darwin who said that the differences between us and other animals are of degree rather than kind, and I believe this makes sense seeing as we most likely all share a common evolutionary ancestor.

Your comment about a cow’s suffering being absent due to them not objecting to it is just ridiculous. Obviously they do not communicate in all of the same ways that we do, but they are able to do things such as groan, express negative body language, cry out, flinch, struggle, and flee that can give us a relatively reasonable idea of what they are experiencing because this is how many humans react to the same stimuli. Suffering and duress are not “human” traits, but animal ones that we ourselves gained from being a part of the animal kingdom, although perhaps you can say that there are more things that cause humans suffering it is certainly not exclusive to our species.

Consider the fact that dairy cows will sometimes cry out for days when they are separated from their calves because the milk they produce is destined for human mouths. Or how about that domestic “farm” animals regularly have their tails docked, teeth pulled, and beaks cut because the intensive conditions of factory farms cause them to become psychotic, where they will bite and peck each other to death, or even sometimes resort to cannibalism.

http://www.newburyportnews.com/loca...o-be-cows-missing-their-calves?mobRedir=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docking_(animal)#Agricultural_practice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking

The amount of information out there on the topic of animal suffering and cognition is insurmountable, so I hope you don’t expect me to provide information on every animal in existence. I have already posted many links within this thread and in the topic I referred to in my initial post, so I would suggest that you do your own research on the matter if you feel the need to.

Furthermore, we cannot be 100% certain of anyone’s experiences, even if they flat out tell us what they are. They could, after all, be lying or perhaps not fully understand what it is that they’re feeling. This would become even more difficult to determine if we were to come across a strange individual that did not speak the same language as we did. The key is not to KNOW their experiences obviously, but to be reasonably certain of them. We can determine, for example, that most humans feel the same about fear and pain as we do because we witness their BEHAVIORS toward said stimuli and can liken them to our own.

Similarly, we can look toward the behavior of other animals, and if they react as we do in certain situations then we can be REASONBLY certain that they are experiencing what we are experiencing. Even though we can’t be absolutely certain, isn’t it best to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters of awarding and protecting rights, just as we would do if we were to encounter a human that we could not communicate with?


You’ll notice that I posted many links that contradicted your own which said that fish can, in fact, suffer and feel pain. Clearly, there is conflicting information to be considered. My point was not that we should refrain from fishing solely due to it being unnecessary, but since it IS unnecessary there is no reason to take the risk that we could be causing these animals great harm.


This isn’t really about me, but what’s not to understand? I am disgusted because these products are the end result of an animal’s life being dominated, controlled, and ended without any regard for what the animals themselves may have wanted. Why would I care about the amount of labor that went into an act I find unjust?

All of us possess privilege to some degree, but it should be noted that nothing is more beneficial in this world than to be born a human being. We do not generally have the risk of being legally raised as livestock, tortured in experiments, or being killed simply because we weren’t born a certain more desirable species.


For the record, there is evidence that other animals display what can be called “ethical” behavior, although to a lesser degree:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1079521,00.html

If you are unable to see that one, you can read the full article here - http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/Speciesism/HonorAmongBeasts.htm

Regardless, I can’t understand why other animals must comprehend morality in order to benefit from it. The most vulnerable members of our society such as children and the severely mentally ******** also cannot be said to comprehend morality, and yet we award them protection. Isn’t there something just about protecting those that cannot protect themselves?

As for an animal’s purpose being to “propagate” the same thing can be said about human beings. There is no objective “purpose” in life, but rather this is something we must decide for ourselves. When it comes to domesticated animals as well as many wild animals we decide to CHOOSE their purpose for them, but how is this defensible? Who are we to decide what another’s purpose must be? Are human beings really this arrogant? Animals do more than have sex; they relax, bathe, learn, eat, play, enjoy each other’s company, and just bask within the boundless pleasures that come with being alive. Why not let them have the power to choose their own purpose?

Also, animals need not run around “unchecked”. If a conflict arises between humans and other animals then we will address it, and if lethal force is necessary in a case of self-defense then I see nothing to object to just as I would not say it is wrong to defend yourself from a human attacker.


That people don’t want to change is not surprising me. The status quo will always resist radical ideals, and it has been this way for thousands of years. It was and still is difficult to get the privileged in our society to empathize with persons of color and women, but we are able to do so all the same.

Not only does your suggestion of appealing to the environmental damages of eating meat ignore animals as individuals, it also doesn’t make sense in the first place as solution to the abolition of animal agriculture. It is certainly demonstrable that one can still farm animals without contributing so much to climate change and environmental damage, although this would probably still require a drastic reduction in our meat production. There is more to climate change obviously than eating meat, such as our dependence on unsustainable fuel sources and our massively overpopulated species. Needless to say, appealing to environmental consequences is not going to stop the consumption meat or other animal products, so what do we do from there?

Well, social movements in the past were not successful because they asserted that oppression of marginalized groups was contributing to a decline in our environment, but because they made active demands for better treatment and the abolition of harmful practices which created debate within society and eventually lead to social change:

http://fortheabolitionofveganism.blogspot.com/2013/07/great-comic-by-insolente-veggie.html


Well first of all, that someone is being hypocritical certainly doesn’t invalidate any position they may be advocating. Second, how exactly is that hypocritical? You would have to say the same thing about those that don’t give all their money to human charities, yet still advocate that humans be treated fairly and respectfully. There’s a difference between giving everything you can and showing basic respect to other individuals.



The implication being that if we didn’t eat meat we’d have nothing else to eat?

It’s interesting that we can say that killing an animal is in anyway treating that animal correctly. There’s also the issue of using animals in general and dominating their lives when they actually may have interests that exist apart from our own.


Many of these species will survive, and many are already, within the wild. Furthermore, non-existence does not harm anyone, so I don’t see what the problem is with discontinuing the practice of breeding animals for food and other purposes.


Life in general is not a paradise. Not that we would just release these animals into the wild, as that would be irresponsible. Wild animals however have the benefit of controlling their own lives and making their own decisions which I’m sure many would prefer over being “safer”. Humans are constantly knocking at death's door, and, indeed, we die every day. Tomorrow we could be hit by a car, die from pneumonia, choke on a sandwich, murdered by another human, etc. Life is dangerous, and life can be cruel. This is just something we've got to deal with. Just because we understand this though does not permit us to wantonly kill and cause suffering as we see fit. This is lunacy in its most pure sense. We don't have to be the cause of suffering for anyone.




Gawd forbid that we do more than one thing at a time right?

It doesn’t surprise me that you say this either since you seem to believe that other animals are nothing more than “instinctual robots”, despite the fact that this is completely irrational when we are to consider the theory of evolution.



Eating less meat would be a great start, but there is ultimately the question of whether we are being just by refusing to allow other animals to make their own choices. By the way, we can also acquire all of those necessary nutrients from non-animal sources.

You are my new sempai god, along with Onision and Kira. I suck at explaining things and usually add things to make me look bad when talking about my own ideals. Could you also explain the whole situation of wasting crops and water and how we could grow more crops? Is the soil fertile enough to grow them and if they aren't can we fix it?

I feel that this thread only starts to make sense when you say something.

 

[Praxis]

Yes, I've seen those documentaries on how hellish slaughterhouses are, the image of baby chickens rolling across a conveyor belt is particularly gut-wrenching. I don't purchase much meat, but it's not like refusing to eat when it's served to me accomplishes anything other than making me look like a pretentious git.

I feel like the conditions of animals are a purely separate debate that is added in to the "should we be vegetarians?" debate.

I bought and split a grass fed cow from a local farmer in Idaho and a full lamb last year. Had them take the cow/lamb to a well reputed butcher and picked up the meat. Put it in my deep freezer and am still working on it.

I asked to keep the organ meat (heart, liver, kidney) and bones (for soup) to make full use of it.

I think "should we regulate the condition in which animals are kept in" and "should we eat meat" are separate debates. We know that natural (wild) meat is perfectly healthy and in fact high meat diets are perfectly okay for you when you eat the whole animal (eating nothing but muscle meat results in "rabbit starvation", but eating nothing but meat/fatty parts/organs turns out to not have any major health problems).

 

[LarsINTJ]

I feel like the conditions of animals are a purely separate debate that is added in to the "should we be vegetarians?" debate.

Agreed, that's why my first post focused on where animals fit into the formulation of ethics. Yet the subsequent responses are way more emotionally-laden than reasoned counter-arguments, it's difficult to reply. Just reminding everyone that you don't need to be a vegan to be repulsed by animal abuse.

 

[Mike_Tha_Hero]

For food and when their environment immediately conflicts with humans.

 

[LarsINTJ]

There IS logic involved within morals though such as applying one’s beliefs consistently. This is where the field of ethics comes into play. Be it deontology, utilitarianism, or contractualism we use these ethical theories to better understand how we ought to treat those that are around us.

Ethics =/= pick a flavor then add common sense, if it were that easy then humanity would have had things sorted a long time ago. The fact that people are running around with different ethical frameworks is what causes conflict in the first place.

- Deontology: Create a subjective standard for 'the good' then encourage everyone to fulfill that standard regardless of consequence.

- Utilitarianism: Attempt to model behavior around what is subjectively 'the good' as a result of consequence.

- Contractualism: 'The good' is anything which isn't wrong. What's classified as wrong? Anything which cannot 'reasonably' be classified as good (subjective... and circular).

These are all basically the same thing - 'The good' is whatever an individual wants it to be. Our post-modern perception of ethics is a relativistic mess which achieves nothing other than inciting more conflict. It's no different from Religion.

Objective ethics classifies evil based on logical inconsistency, that is if a proposition does not hold up as a universal principle; our emotional response toward 'rightness' and 'wrongness' plays no part. The only correct behavior is the avoidance of incorrect behavior. I know this can be tough to wrap your head around at first.

There are two problems with the original question posed by Rabbattack.
1. The word 'when' denotes that ethics may change depending on context. This is not the case.
2. The word 'right' - ethics cannot objectively outline correct behavior.

Is it wrong to kill animals in general? Well I already explained the issues concerning personhood and immorality. It's ultimately a neutral action which may support the propensity for evil depending on motive.

 

[Raido]

Well first of all, that someone is being hypocritical certainly doesn’t invalidate any position they may be advocating. Second, how exactly is that hypocritical? You would have to say the same thing about those that don’t give all their money to human charities, yet still advocate that humans be treated fairly and respectfully. There’s a difference between giving everything you can and showing basic respect to other individuals.

No it's not the same. He wants meat production to completely stop in order to help people in need. So I say, he should spend all his money to charity to help people in need. Oh, he wants to donate only part of his money? Fine, then how about we just reduce meat production?

I just use the same argumentation.

The implication being that if we didn’t eat meat we’d have nothing else to eat?

No. I explained to him why we would eat meat, even if we could reduce world hunger. Just like we enjoy playing Smash and spending money on the game, instead of donating it to charity. World hunger is not a reason for us to stop enjoying things. We won't throw our luxury away to help people in need. We might give it partly away, but not all of it.

It’s interesting that we can say that killing an animal is in anyway treating that animal correctly. There’s also the issue of using animals in general and dominating their lives when they actually may have interests that exist apart from our own.

We also dominate the lives or our fellow humans. And animals dominate the lives of other animals in nature. We also need animals in many fields, so we will always dominate them in some way.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Isn't anyone going to pay attention to the fact that modern meat production is blown way out of proportion by heavy subsidies? I've mentioned it three times already. The true cost of meat is substantially more than what people pay for it currently, I would estimate around ten times more expensive.

With meat ten times more expensive, do you really think that people would purchase the same quantity as before just because they enjoy the taste? How many slaughterhouses could afford to keep running?

I'm not suggesting that the solution is as simple as removing those subsidies, it's a bit too late for that now. The government would never reverse such ingrained policies which many people have built their lives around... lest risk mass revolt.

 

[Rabbattack]

I'm done, at least for now. I know what I'm doing is best for me and animals. I'm not trying to force you to change but understand that it would would be better for us if people weren't so lazy and stubborn about their food. I suck at explaining things and Bro AJ is a better person than me to speak the opinions of vegans and vegetarians.

No it's not the same. He wants meat production to completely stop in order to help people in need. So I say, he should spend all his money to charity to help people in need. Oh, he wants to donate only part of his money? Fine, then how about we just reduce meat production?

I just use the same argumentation.

No. I explained to him why we would eat meat, even if we could reduce world hunger. Just like we enjoy playing Smash and spending money on the game, instead of donating it to charity. World hunger is not a reason for us to stop enjoying things. We won't throw our luxury away to help people in need. We might give it partly away, but not all of it.

We also dominate the lives or our fellow humans. And animals dominate the lives of other animals in nature. We also need animals in many fields, so we will always dominate them in some way.

I told you that I'm a kid and don't have money. I can't even afford a WiiU and don't have any sort of allowance. I literally only have $40 to spend right now and I'm saving that for a WiiU I'll probably get in three or four years. I DONT GOTS THE MONEY! You most likely have enough to donate and not be left without entertainment, but I don't.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I told you that I'm a kid and don't have money. I can't even afford a WiiU and don't have any sort of allowance. I literally only have $40 to spend right now and I'm saving that for a WiiU I'll probably get in three or four years. I DONT GOTS THE MONEY! You most likely have enough to donate and not be left without entertainment, but I don't.

Supporting a cause doesn't necessarily require money.

Either way, I know that somebody is pulling my leg if they continually rant about how people need to do something about the horrors of third world starvation, but they would rather maintain their ability to play Nintendo than act on their supposed concerns.

Slight problem though - people suffering in the third world don't need more free stuff, they need self-sufficiency. It's pretty tough to be a farmer when you're competing with free food... or when brutal political warlords armed with US weapons roam the countryside. They also need to be realistic and responsible about how many children they pump out, that would go a long way to reduce starvation.

 

[Brother AJ]

You are my new sempai god, along with Onision and Kira. I suck at explaining things and usually add things to make me look bad when talking about my own ideals. Could you also explain the whole situation of wasting crops and water and how we could grow more crops? Is the soil fertile enough to grow them and if they aren't can we fix it?


I feel that this thread only starts to make sense when you say something.

Well, I’m flattered, but I’m not sure I’m comfortable with being thought of as a god. No offense of course.

As for your question, I believe it’s clear that an abundance of resources could be saved if we stopped reserving so much of them for the preservation of “livestock”, and this is true even if we are to consider that some of the land could not be used to grow food that is edible for humans.

There is also evidence that animal agriculture itself has lead to a massive amount of soil erosion, so ending the practice could prevent this from happening any further:

http://ohioline.osu.edu/ls-fact/0002.html

I would also recommend taking a look at this article which describes how it is possible to make use of infertile soil, including making it fertile once more:

http://www.biocharproducts.com/biochar-the-solution-to-infertile-soil.html

Personally, I think I could stand to learn a little more on how exactly agriculture works, but I do possess hope for the future. Technology is improving all the time, and there’s no doubt in my mind that if we want a plant-based agriculture to exist then we are capable of creating this reality. The following is just one example of what the future may hold:

http://www.verticalfarm.com/

I'm done, at least for now. I know what I'm doing is best for me and animals. I'm not trying to force you to change but understand that it would would be better for us if people weren't so lazy and stubborn about their food. I suck at explaining things and Bro AJ is a better person than me to speak the opinions of vegans and vegetarians.

I hope you’re not beating yourself up about having trouble with providing explanations. We all have to start somewhere do we not? I myself started honing my debating skills by getting involved in the serious discussion forums on a Brawl website, back when it first came out. All it takes is time, and perhaps a bit of research. Always be open to new perspectives as well, and be willing to admit that you are wrong (not that you are in this case). I hope to see you posting again soon.

I’d also like to mention that while resource conservation and other environmental improvements could result from the abolition of animal agriculture; this is not a reason in itself for ending the practice. Theoretically, we could still raise and kill animals for food at more sustainable levels, but this would only require the reduction not the abolition of said ritual.

Only when we consider other animals to be of moral importance and as beings that possess their OWN interests will we finally begin to refrain from killing and exploiting them intentionally.

Ethics =/= pick a flavor then add common sense, if it were that easy then humanity would have had things sorted a long time ago. The fact that people are running around with different ethical frameworks is what causes conflict in the first place.


- Deontology: Create a subjective standard for 'the good' then encourage everyone to fulfill that standard regardless of consequence.


- Utilitarianism: Attempt to model behavior around what is subjectively 'the good' as a result of consequence.


- Contractualism: 'The good' is anything which isn't wrong. What's classified as wrong? Anything which cannot 'reasonably' be classified as good (subjective... and circular).


These are all basically the same thing - 'The good' is whatever an individual wants it to be. Our post-modern perception of ethics is a relativistic mess which achieves nothing other than inciting more conflict.

I was not suggesting that this is what is inherently involved within ethics. I was merely laying some of the ethical theories that already exist, although I do believe that some are far more reasonable than others.

I’m not sure how we are to establish that any standard for “the good” is anything other than a subjective perception on our part. This doesn’t trouble me however, because like it or not our actions have consequences and it seems obvious that we ought to be promoting well being over suffering throughout the universe. It’s strange that anyone would suggest we do otherwise regardless if we can prove that the well being of individuals and society is objectively “good”.

Objective ethics classifies evil based on logical inconsistency, that is if it does not hold up as a universal principle; our emotional response toward 'rightness' and 'wrongness' plays no part. The only correct behavior is the avoidance of incorrect behavior. I know this can be tough to wrap your head around at first.

Where exactly do these objective ethics originate from though and how are we to know them? Furthermore, is it really outright irrational to suggest that an ethic of not killing or exploiting animals ought to be held up as a universal principle?

There are two problems with the original question posed by Rabbattack.

1. The word 'when' denotes that ethics may change depending on context. This is not the case.

2. The word 'right' - ethics cannot objectively outline correct behavior.

This is confusing to me. Then what does outline the correct behavior?

Also, how can we reasonably dismiss all possible contexts when it comes to ethics? What of an ethic that states “humans shouldn’t be imprisoned against their will”? Would the latter mean that it can NEVER be right to imprison humans even if they may be a danger to society? What of the ethic “humans shouldn’t be killed”? Does this mean that even humane euthanasia to end someone’s suffering shouldn’t be permitted?

Is it wrong to kill animals in general? Well I already explained the issues concerning personhood and immorality. It's ultimately a neutral action which may support the propensity for evil depending on motive.

I disagree with the conclusion you made concerning the cognitive abilities of other animals, and I explained why this is so within post #48.

Your belief that other animals are essentially “instinctual robots” is incredibly out of date as well as grossly inconsistent with the theory of evolution. I’d also like to see if you’re actually able to demonstrate that other animals are incapable of projecting possible future scenarios and being able to choose between them accordingly.

As of right now, I don’t quite understand how this “objective” morality of yours is able to establish that there is nothing “evil” about killing an animal against their will. Or perhaps you think that other animals do not will or desire anything? If you believe the answer is “yes” to this question, please show how this is apparent.

No it's not the same. He wants meat production to completely stop in order to help people in need. So I say, he should spend all his money to charity to help people in need. Oh, he wants to donate only part of his money? Fine, then how about we just reduce meat production?

I just use the same argumentation.

No. I explained to him why we would eat meat, even if we could reduce world hunger. Just like we enjoy playing Smash and spending money on the game, instead of donating it to charity. World hunger is not a reason for us to stop enjoying things. We won't throw our luxury away to help people in need. We might give it partly away, but not all of it.

Sorry, but it wasn’t really clear to me who you were responding to, or why you brought up bread and water in the first place. I understand what you were saying now.

We also dominate the lives or our fellow humans. And animals dominate the lives of other animals in nature. We also need animals in many fields, so we will always dominate them in some way.

First, I’m not sure you understand what I mean by “domination”. I meant we dominate other animals in the sense that we do not allow them to pursue their own interests or desires. It certainly is not recognized as legal or moral to dominate humans in this fashion.

Second, I don’t understand why you are bringing up what other animals do in “nature”, as this is irrelevant to how humans ought to be behaving.

Finally, please explain how we “need animals in many fields”, and what this entails exactly.

 

[Rythmic]

Not sure if this has been covered, but what about people with diseases? I myself have type 1 diabetes and with out meat, my blood sugar levels would either be low or high which is bad for both. Meat is really the only thing that won't send them sky high. A lot of fruits will send me high and I need to give myself a lot more insulin which could end up making me have a hypo if I'm not careful, putting me into a coma. I don't eat meat all the time but I do eat it a lot.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I’m not sure how we are to establish that any standard for “the good” is anything other than a subjective perception on our part. This doesn’t trouble me however, because like it or not our actions have consequences and it seems obvious that we ought to be promoting well being over suffering throughout the universe. It’s strange that anyone would suggest we do otherwise regardless if we can prove that the well being of individuals and society is objectively “good”.

Any attempting to directly classify virtuous behavior is invalid because positive action cannot be universalized. Ethics can only classify evil behavior.

Collective well-being is a difficult thing because we all possess different standards and aspirations. No single person can rightfully enforce their greater good upon everyone else.

Where exactly do these objective ethics originate from though and how are we to know them? Furthermore, is it really outright irrational to suggest that an ethic of not killing or exploiting animals ought to be held up as a universal principle?

Like I mentioned, objective ethics is derived from classifications of evil based on logical inconsistency. To kill an animal is not rationally the same as murdering a human.

Is it permissible to kill a human? There is no answer which applies to all circumstances.
Is it permissible to murder a human? Never, the act of murder cannot be universalized as a moral good because the very definition requires it to be unwanted. If we all accept murder as good then it's no longer murder.

The issue resides in a lesser animal's lack of personhood within the human framework. A lion may eat a human, but we do not charge that lion for murder. A lion may eat another lion, we still do not charge the lion for murder. Animals aren't capable of weighing choices then acting accordingly, they respond to stimuli (instinctual or otherwise). If we exempt them from the capacity for murder then it is in turn impossible to murder a lesser animal.

This doesn't mean that some animals aren't closer to humans than others, but none of them are truly comparable. The closest are obviously other primates.

This is confusing to me. Then what does outline the correct behavior?

Also, how can we reasonably dismiss all possible contexts when it comes to ethics? What of an ethic that states “humans shouldn’t be imprisoned against their will”? Would the latter mean that it can NEVER be right to imprison humans even if they may be a danger to society? What of the ethic “humans shouldn’t be killed”? Does this mean that even humane euthanasia to end someone’s suffering shouldn’t be permitted?

Ethics outline absolute distinctions (such as kill vs. murder), it does recommend a single course of action which should be taken in response to any context.

'It is unethical for one human to confine another against their will'.
Is this a valid moral principle? No it isn't, this cannot apply to all people, all places and all times. A person may be confined in self-defense or defense of a third party.

Now back to the first.

'It is unethical for one human to imprison another against their will'
Is this valid? Yes.

Here we have a distinction between imprison and confine just as there is a distinction between murder and kill. 'Imprison' is an initiation of force which implies that the victim has failed to satisfy an arbitrary preference, it is not an act of self-defense or the defense of a third party.

Keep in mind that self-ownership is the axiom behind all objective ethical theory. Self-ownership cannot be disputed without demonstrating self-ownership. If we own our bodies, then we're also responsible for the effects of our actions.

I disagree with the conclusion you made concerning the cognitive abilities of other animals, and I explained why this is so within post #48.

Your belief that other animals are essentially “instinctual robots” is incredibly out of date as well as grossly inconsistent with the theory of evolution. I’d also like to see if you’re actually able to demonstrate that other animals are incapable of projecting possible future scenarios and being able to choose between them accordingly.

As of right now, I don’t quite understand how this “objective” morality of yours is able to establish that there is nothing “evil” about killing an animal against their will. Or perhaps you think that other animals do not will or desire anything? If you believe the answer is “yes” to this question, please show how this is apparent.

I actually consider most humans to be instinctual robots, although they do (or at some point did) possess the capacity for choice. As for other animals, yes, it is more than apparent that they are intellectually inferior enough to be exempted from ethics. The severely mentally handicapped are exempted from ethics too - that does not mean that it's permissible to treat them poorly or kill them for no reason.

Not sure if this has been covered, but what about people with diseases? I myself have type 1 diabetes and with out meat, my blood sugar levels would either be low or high which is bad for both. Meat is really the only thing that won't send them sky high. A lot of fruits will send me high and I need to give myself a lot more insulin which could end up making me have a hypo if I'm not careful, putting me into a coma. I don't eat meat all the time but I do eat it a lot.

I sympathize, buddy.

I'm not diabetic, but I recently experienced what dangerously low blood sugar is like, scary stuff.

 

[Rabbattack]

Not sure if this has been covered, but what about people with diseases? I myself have type 1 diabetes and with out meat, my blood sugar levels would either be low or high which is bad for both. Meat is really the only thing that won't send them sky high. A lot of fruits will send me high and I need to give myself a lot more insulin which could end up making me have a hypo if I'm not careful, putting me into a coma. I don't eat meat all the time but I do eat it a lot.

If eating meat is the cheapest way to avoid the problem then I won't argue. I want to hear Bro AJ's opinion on this matter.

Any attempting to directly classify virtuous behavior is invalid because positive action cannot be universalized. Ethics can only classify evil behavior.

Collective well-being is a difficult thing because we all possess different standards and aspirations. No single person can rightfully enforce their greater good upon everyone else.



Like I mentioned, objective ethics is derived from classifications of evil based on logical inconsistency. To kill an animal is not rationally the same as murdering a human.

Is it permissible to kill a human? There is no answer which applies to all circumstances.
Is it permissible to murder a human? Never, the act of murder cannot be universalized as a moral good because the very definition requires it to be unwanted. If we all accept murder as good then it's no longer murder.

The issue resides in a lesser animal's lack of personhood within the human framework. A lion may eat a human, but we do not charge that lion for murder. A lion may eat another lion, we still do not charge the lion for murder. Animals aren't capable of weighing choices then acting accordingly, they respond to stimuli (instinctual or otherwise). If we exempt them from the capacity for murder then it is in turn impossible to murder a lesser animal.

This doesn't mean that some animals aren't closer to humans than others, but none of them are truly comparable. The closest are obviously other primates.



Ethics outline absolute distinctions (such as kill vs. murder), it does recommend a single course of action which should be taken in response to any context.

'It is unethical for one human to confine another against their will'.
Is this a valid moral principle? No it isn't, this cannot apply to all people, all places and all times. A person may be confined in self-defense or defense of a third party.

Now back to the first.

'It is unethical for one human to imprison another against their will'
Is this valid? Yes.

Here we have a distinction between imprison and confine just as there is a distinction between murder and kill. 'Imprison' is an initiation of force which implies that the victim has failed to satisfy an arbitrary preference, it is not an act of self-defense or the defense of a third party.

Keep in mind that self-ownership is the axiom behind all objective ethical theory. Self-ownership cannot be disputed without demonstrating self-ownership. If we own our bodies, then we're also responsible for the effects of our actions.



I actually consider most humans to be instinctual robots, although they do (or at some point did) possess the capacity for choice. As for other animals, yes, it is more than apparent that they are intellectually inferior enough to be exempted from ethics. The severely mentally handicapped are exempted from ethics too - that does not mean that it's permissible to treat them poorly or kill them for no reason.


I sympathize, buddy.

I'm not diabetic, but I recently experienced what dangerously low blood sugar is like, scary stuff.

What if the person is trying to kill you and you have to defend yourself. I would try to kill that person in fear of losing my life. I would feel sadder for an animal dying trying to protect itself than a human knowingly trying to bring unnecessary harm or death upon me.

 

[Anomalus]

Like I mentioned, objective ethics is derived from classifications of evil based on logical inconsistency. To kill an animal is not rationally the same as murdering a human.

 

[LarsINTJ]

If eating meat is the cheapest way to avoid the problem then I won't argue. I want to hear Bro AJ's opinion on this matter.

What if the person is trying to kill you and you have to defend yourself. I would try to kill that person in fear of losing my life. I would feel sadder for an animal dying trying to protect itself than a human knowingly trying to bring unnecessary harm or death upon me.

All I'm trying to convey is that killing an animal is not ethically the same as murdering a human. It has nothing to do with whether killing animals is universally good or evil because it's impossible to clarify for all circumstances. This is one of those grey areas.

If someone has a preference for eating meat while another does not, neither person can rightfully enforce their will on the other. Animals are not a valid 3rd party when it comes to permissible aggression for the sake of defense.

To take an extreme example:
Some hothead is repeatedly riding their bike over a kitten. In response, I choose to either shoot him in the head or lock him in my basement for five years where my neighbors are forced to provide the additional resources necessary to keep him alive and healthy.

Who do you think is more at fault? Clearly I am the one who has initiated force against another or potentially many other people. All the kitten-abuser has done is demonstrate their own sadism - indicatively a victim of child abuse, far worse than kitten abuse.

Lesser animals are not people, they're either considered a resource or personal property. That is not to say that animals deserve the same consideration as inanimate objects, but a lot of the same rules apply. Obviously if somebody takes great pleasure inflicting pain upon helpless animals then they have serious issues which should have been prevented/addressed long ago, any reasonably healthy person who is capable empathy would not be able to stomach such cruelty.

What about paraconsistent logic? Or intuitionistic logic?

A proposition is either true or it is false.

Firstly, paraconsistent logic immediately denies the law of non-contradiction - it's a thought experiment which asserts that something may be true and false at the same time.

Secondly, intuitionistic logic is just a fancy way of saying 'fence-sitting'. It denies the law of the excluded middle then inserts the truth value 'unknown' between 'true' and 'false' in a needlessly formal fashion.

Thirdly, try explaining any of this stuff to people who aren't snooty academics, I guarantee it will go way over their heads.

...

On an different note, in one of the pole options for this thread, 'survival of the fittest' is not a correct use of the term. 'Fittest' does not refer to physical dominance between species, it refers to advantageous attributes which contribute toward survival within a given environment - enough to enable consistent reproduction and replication of those traits. This is why humans have gradually become smarter over tens of thousands of years, the idiots are more likely to die before they're able to successfully reproduce.

Other animals did not have to rely as much on their brain/foresight in order to survive. For humans, options like 'fly away' (...not that we can fly), 'climb a tree', 'run/swim as fast as you can' or 'use brute force' are not viable when predators outperform in these areas.

Our place at the top of the food chain was no easy victory. We've grown to kill and eat nature because nature has no qualms about killing and eating us; sometimes that's to be taken metaphorically rather than literally.

Either:
1. We can elevate humans above nature which means that lesser animals do not fit into the definition of personhood and thus an objective ethical framework.
2. We consider humanity to be an equal aspect of all nature where it makes no sense to assign ourselves responsibilities that other equal animals are not required to uphold.

It's not possible to elevate humans with exclusive responsibilities toward lower aspects of nature and consider lesser animals to be morally equal at the same time.

 

[Anomalus]

A proposition is either true or it is false.

Assumption. Ontologically intuitive but there's quite the distance between ontology and epistemology. Consider this proposition:

"There is a particle which does not interact with anything in the universe." Things being true or false does not imply that we can always tell the difference.

Undecidability reigns.

Firstly, paraconsistent logic immediately denies the law of non-contradiction - it's a thought experiment which asserts that something may be true and false at the same time.

Or that an agent or system is not reliably capable of distinguishing truth from falsity, or many other interpretations. It (and intuitionistic logic) is no more thought experiment than classical logic, as it is weaker than classical logic, it assumes less, is more parsimonious. There's more to logic than Frege.

Secondly, intuitionistic logic is just a fancy way of saying 'fence-sitting'. It denies the law of the excluded middle then inserts the truth value 'unknown' between 'true' and 'false' in a needlessly formal fashion.

Except this "fence-sitting" has the useful property of computability, unlike classical logic.

Thirdly, try explaining any of this stuff to people who aren't snooty academics, I guarantee it will go way over their heads.

So much the worse for them!

My point is that logic is no final measure for selecting ethical frameworks since there are also alternative logical frameworks! Ethics and Aesthetics are one. Subjectivity is inescapable (unfortunately).

Someone like Bro AJ or Rabbatack considers animal life sufficient for ethical consideration, someone like you might restrict that to human life. In one direction we can extend this to consider all life (or even consider potential life or inanimate objects) and in the other we can restrict this to totally disregard ethical considerations, depending on one's standards of proof and reasoning.

 

[Rabbattack]

Assumption. Ontologically intuitive but there's quite the distance between ontology and epistemology. Consider this proposition:

"There is a particle which does not interact with anything in the universe." Things being true or false does not imply that we can always tell the difference.

Undecidability reigns.



Or that an agent or system is not reliably capable of distinguishing truth from falsity, or many other interpretations. It (and intuitionistic logic) is no more thought experiment than classical logic, as it is weaker than classical logic, it assumes less, is more parsimonious. There's more to logic than Frege.



Except this "fence-sitting" has the useful property of computability, unlike classical logic.



So much the worse for them!

My point is that logic is no final measure for selecting ethical frameworks since there are also alternative logical frameworks! Ethics and Aesthetics are one. Subjectivity is inescapable (unfortunately).

Someone like Bro AJ or Rabbatack considers animal life sufficient for ethical consideration, someone like you might restrict that to human life. In one direction we can extend this to consider all life (or even consider potential life or inanimate objects) and in the other we can restrict this to totally disregard ethical considerations, depending on one's standards of proof and reasoning.

Not just ethics. That's only part of the reason.

 

[LarsINTJ]

So much the worse for them!

I find this sentiment to be very much against the original purpose of philosophy.

Also, please don't go spreading the vile and reprehensible catastrophe that is moral relativism as if it's just a given. I've already explained myself in previous posts.

Counter-arguments beyond ‘nuh-uh’, *insert link* are appreciated.

I’m only concerned with empiricism, not irrelevant windy abstracts which contribute nothing to society.

 

[Rabbattack]

Videos of my sempai in action. Dont worry BroAJ, you're still #2.

 

[LarsINTJ]

The videos definitely demonstrate people's general inability to think/provide actual arguments regardless of vegan status.

It's completely fine to be sentimental toward lesser animals, but if your primary goal is to cause self-attack in people who don't share your perspective then the arguments are nothing more than a pretentious ad hominem. This most often goes both ways.

We must get to the root of the issue rather than squabbling over our emotions.

I know it's highly unorthodox to bring Hitler into any debate, but did you know that he was extremely sentimental toward animals? Make of that what you will.

 

[Sucumbio]

So have we progressed past subjective reasoning yet, or are we still arguing over preferences and arbitrary lines? I think I'll stop eating carrots. They scream when they're pulled from the ground, you just can't hear them.

 

[Brother AJ]

Not sure if this has been covered, but what about people with diseases? I myself have type 1 diabetes and with out meat, my blood sugar levels would either be low or high which is bad for both. Meat is really the only thing that won't send them sky high. A lot of fruits will send me high and I need to give myself a lot more insulin which could end up making me have a hypo if I'm not careful, putting me into a coma. I don't eat meat all the time but I do eat it a lot.

I do not know of any scientific evidence that shows that one must eat meat if they are diabetic. In fact, The American Diabetes Association fully supports vegetarian/vegan diets. Fruit is certainly not your only food option either on a such a diet.

Source: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/planning-meals/meal-planning-for-vegetarians/

Any attempting to directly classify virtuous behavior is invalid because positive action cannot be universalized. Ethics can only classify evil behavior.


Collective well-being is a difficult thing because we all possess different standards and aspirations. No single person can rightfully enforce their greater good upon everyone else.

My point was that there is no real need to establish “objective” ethics when we’re all capable of understanding and implementing these basic concepts. People will choose to act “morally” regardless if one provides proof that this is a “good” thing to do. All humans can be said to possess this supposition, and so it is almost meaningless to have a discussion on whether ethics can be proven objectively. All I ask is that people apply their ethics in a consistent and logical manner. There’s certainly nothing wrong with letting everyone have their own aspirations and standards when it comes to their quality of life, so long as they do not violate another’s own well being.

Though I can’t say that I understand though why exactly a “positive” action cannot be universalized? Why can’t we say for instance, “It is good to give someone food when they are starving”? Why can’t this be universalized? Just because something is “good” to do doesn’t necessarily mean we are obligated to do it either.

Like I mentioned, objective ethics is derived from classifications of evil based on logical inconsistency. To kill an animal is not rationally the same as murdering a human.

Is it permissible to kill a human? There is no answer which applies to all circumstances.

Is it permissible to murder a human? Never, the act of murder cannot be universalized as a moral good because the very definition requires it to be unwanted. If we all accept murder as good then it's no longer murder.

I’d appreciate an elaboration on these “objective ethics”, as I don’t fully understand how they can be said to be tangible rules that we all must follow. How does “logical inconsistency” show without a shadow of a doubt that something is evil? Why is a behavior that is by definition “unwanted” objectively evil?

Regardless, do you honestly believe that other animals care not whether they live or die? Or perhaps the better question is whether you can prove that other animals lack the desire to continue to live? Supposedly killing a human is not the same as killing other animals, but I’ve yet to see you present evidence that confirms your claim. So far you seem to be basically going off mere assumptions when it comes to the subject of nonhuman animal cognition.

The issue resides in a lesser animal's lack of personhood within the human framework. A lion may eat a human, but we do not charge that lion for murder. A lion may eat another lion, we still do not charge the lion for murder. Animals aren't capable of weighing choices then acting accordingly, they respond to stimuli (instinctual or otherwise). If we exempt them from the capacity for murder then it is in turn impossible to murder a lesser animal.


This doesn't mean that some animals aren't closer to humans than others, but none of them are truly comparable. The closest are obviously other primates.

It would be quite difficult to explain much of animal behavior unless we were to conclude that they too are capable of making and weighing various decisions. Though it can be said that they are incapable of making overly complex choices or that they understand moral frameworks in general, it does not then follow that they cannot be murdered.

We would not charge a toddler with murder for pushing their mother down the stairs, but we WOULD still consider it murder to kill said toddler. Young and/or severely mentally deficient humans and other animals cannot be said to understand and fully comprehend the nature of violence and its consequences, but it is still the case that they possess preferences and that not to die is certainly one of them. Who are we to reject these preferences when said individuals are doing nothing to actively harm us? Perhaps they cannot respect our preferences to the same extent, but this is obviously something that they cannot control and are, therefore, not at fault for.

I actually consider most humans to be instinctual robots, although they do (or at some point did) possess the capacity for choice. As for other animals, yes, it is more than apparent that they are intellectually inferior enough to be exempted from ethics. The severely mentally handicapped are exempted from ethics too - that does not mean that it's permissible to treat them poorly or kill them for no reason.

Yes, humans obviously possess instincts as well, but to then conclude that they are the only ones capable of possessing the capacity for choice is simply ludicrous. That this is “apparent” to you obviously does not mean this is our reality. It has been shown numerous times that the other animals of this Earth possess behavioral, chemical, and structural features that we also see in human beings. This is especially true when we consider vertebrae such as mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, etc. It was Darwin who said that the differences between us and other animals are of degree rather than kind, and I believe this makes sense seeing as we’ve all been evolving side by side for millions of years and most likely share a common ancestor.

So, you’re honestly trying to convince me that other animals are SO dissimilar from humans that they are incapable of using their brains to make decisions? The circulatory and digestive systems are fine, but the nervous system is just on the fritz?

An interesting article: http://james-mcwilliams.com/?p=122

A related point to keep in mind regarding anthropomorphism is that, for many scientists today who work with animals, removing anthropomorphic perspectives and descriptions destroys the most effective avenue of human connection to the animals under study. On this point the experiences of psychologist D. O. Hebb is instructive.

As recounted in Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights, when Hebb attempted to evaluate the primates he was studying without resorting to “anthropomorphic descriptions in the study of the temperament,” he ended up with useless data. “All that resulted,” he explained, “was an almost endless series of specific acts in which no order or meaning could be found.”

By contrast, when the primates were then evaluated with anthropomorphic descriptions, “one could quickly and easily describe the peculiarities of the individual animals, and with this information a newcomer to the staff could handle the animals as he could not safely otherwise.”

I also disagree with you that the severely mentally handicapped should be exempted from ethics. I would assume you say this because they too cannot understand moral theories? And what is exactly qualifies as treating mentally handicapped humans and other animals “poorly”? Why should we care how they are treated if they are exempted from ethics? What does it mean to “kill them for no reason”? When these individuals are killed is it not always done for a “reason” regardless if that “reason” happens to be pleasure? Finally, are you saying that we should feel free to treat mentally handicapped humans as we currently treat other animals such as farming them and torturing them for science?

I know it's highly unorthodox to bring Hitler into any debate, but did you know that he was extremely sentimental toward animals? Make of that what you will.

What are you suggesting here exactly? That those who possess sentimentality towards others animals will lack compassion for humanity? No, there’s actually nothing TO make of here, and I’m honestly baffled why people continue to make this point.

First of all, there are mixed accounts of his supposed “sentimentality” towards other animals, as it was reportedly the case that this was propaganda spewed in order to make the German dictator seem more “peaceful” or comparable to the likes of Ghandi. Your point here is tantamount to me saying that Joseph Stalin ate meat and cared little for other animals, and this, therefore, allows us to conclude something about ALL people that feel the same as him. A little silly don’t you think?

So have we progressed past subjective reasoning yet, or are we still arguing over preferences and arbitrary lines? I think I'll stop eating carrots. They scream when they're pulled from the ground, you just can't hear them.

Right, you can’t hear the screaming from rocks either. Seriously, that is your argument? There is ample non-arbitrary evidence that demonstrates the vast mental and physical similarities that exist between humans and other animals, and this in turn would suggest that we ought to consider them similarly from an ethical standpoint as well.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I’d appreciate an elaboration on these “objective ethics”, as I don’t fully understand how they can be said to be tangible rules that we all must follow. How does “logical inconsistency” show without a shadow of a doubt that something is evil? Why is a behavior that is by definition “unwanted” objectively evil?

Here's something more specific:

Whether shooting somebody is bad? Not clear enough. I may shoot somebody in self-defense or somebody else may ask me to shoot them, it wouldn't be an evil thing to do in those circumstances regardless of motivation or ideals.

On the other hand...

'It is wrong to initiate undesired harm upon another person' fits any circumstance.

Why is it wrong? ...because it can't possibly be considered good! Let us propose the opposite:

'It is right to initiate undesired harm upon another person'

So now we're forced to classify anyone who is not starting fights to be evil, this includes people who are physically unable despite a lack of choice (the reason ethics exists as an idea). Furthermore, it's only possible for one person to start a fight, automatically condemning the target(s) for acting in self-defense - that means it's impossible for everyone to maintain a state of virtue under such a rule. There's one more issue here, if everyone accepts initiating harm upon others as good then it's no longer undesired, furthering the impossibility of virtue.

Naturally we conclude:

If we are to achieve virtue, then 'It is not right to initiate undesired harm upon another person'. That's something we can all follow at all times.

Yet simply refraining from evil does not make someone a saint. The specifics of virtue (honesty, courage, respect, etc) are more circumstantial whereas evil is absolute.

(By the way, Mahatma Ghandi was a monster too, so was Nelson Mandela while we're at it... also Che Guevara x1000 - just look into their full biographies, ignore the cultural hero-worship. I only brought up Hitler as an example which highlights the dangers of unfounded sentimentality)

EDIT: Nihilism: (It is true that-) 'There is no such thing as truth', a principle which implodes. Just like Agnosticism.

I'm not responding anymore, you only seem to be capable of emotional sophistry and I have zero respect for that.

 

[Sucumbio]

Right, you can’t hear the screaming from rocks either. Seriously, that is your argument? There is ample non-arbitrary evidence that demonstrates the vast mental and physical similarities that exist between humans and other animals, and this in turn would suggest that we ought to consider them similarly from an ethical standpoint as well.

Well this is what you've really been saying whole time, that because animals and humans are so similar we "ought" to treat them the same. Ought from an is...

ha. ahhhhhhhhh. ah. okay, so in the Proving Grounds you'll find a topic/poll on morality. And in that topic you'll find me, actually, arguing -for- the side of yes, you can derive an ought from an is. I know...Why there and not here. Nevermind that for now. That said, I, frankly, was unable to prove my case. I tried to use simple rationale and logic, but ran into a serious gap in knowledge it terms of ... shall we say the more lexical components to the argument. So I read up on it, and my reading led to more reading and then more reading, finally I realized that really the issue itself is still divided, and that the best example somehow revolved around a word playing game involving the simple sentence "Go and open the door." Yeah, darn British and their word play. So I gave up. This would be why I made the comment about "long-winded" ... I really hate... I mean HATE, word games. Picking apart a word or phrase and parsing it a bunch of different ways just so what you're trying to prove sounds right, it's annoying, and to me a disservice.

So maybe you can do better? Ultimately what you've undertaken by entering this debate is proving that you can derive an ought from an is. I wish you good luck, because I cannot do so, nor would I really understand if you did, lol. It's like that dude in my math class that somehow proved to me pi was actually 5.4 instead of 3.14159--------ontoforever. Someone ELSE was able to see right through his "joke" proof and was like, nah you're wrong and here's why, whereas I, I was like, yeah that makes sense, pi is 5.4 cool! >< nerds.

And yeah, I know full well the implication. By enjoying meat, I am contradicting myself. I may find that humans are morally altruistic at the genetic level and yet I also believe that killing animals for sustenance is perfectly fine. This means I really do believe that humans > animals and that I employ this as prejudice. I will admit it. One day the Planet of the Apes may come true and my head will be on a pike, or used as a toilet. In the meantime, I'll continue to use animals for my own selfish purposes, because though I feel humans deserve my charity, animals deserve my fork.

 

[Brother AJ]

Here's something more specific:

I can certainly appreciate that logic, but why must something be asserted as “right” in the first place? I’m sure that you are familiar with nihilism? It’s simply difficult to prove why anything is “good” or “evil” in the first place as there are no moral properties that can actually be presented to us. It’s a difficult subject to tackle, and I can’t say that we’ve found the answer quite yet. Fortunately neither I nor anyone else needs ethical imperatives to be proven in order to choose not to harm those that live among us. Regardless of one’s ethical theory though, I would still hope that they apply it consistently in all similar situations.

(By the way, Mahatma Ghandi was a monster too, so was Nelson Mandela while we're at it... also Che Guevara x1000 - just look into their full biographies, ignore the cultural hero-worship. I only brought up Hitler as an example which highlights the dangers of unfounded sentimentality)

I was not making a judgment about Ghandi one way or the other, but simply informing you that the perception of Ghandi’s character was used to Hitler’s advantage to make him seem more likable. Even if Hitler did possess “unfounded sentimentality” for other animals it doesn’t suggest that this had anything to do with his crimes against humanity, and I’d like to see you show otherwise.

I'm not responding anymore, you only seem to be capable of emotional sophistry and I have zero respect for that.

Sorry you feel that way. I was not trying to be “deceptive” if that’s what you are suggesting. I think the problem here has less to with my emotions, and more to do with your inability to recognize and appreciate scientific fact as it stands today. You have still yet to present me with evidence that supports your perception of other animals as “lesser instinctual robots”. You seem to be unaware that your belief completely contradicts modern scientific fields of study including evolutionary biology, zoology, and neuropsychology among other things. All the evidence points towards our physical and psychological similarities with other animals, but perhaps you are ignorant of this? If so, I would suggest doing some research on the matter. I’d like to present you with a few articles that you might find enlightening:

http://www.earthintransition.org/2012/07/scientists-declare-nonhuman-animals-are-conscious/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...hump-and-bees-get-depressed-the-state-animals

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102137.htm

I would also like to explore your reasoning for why we shouldn’t have qualms with harming animals when it is not a situation of necessary self-defense, but if you’re really done with the subject I’ll understand.

Well this is what you've really been saying whole time, that because animals and humans are so similar we "ought" to treat them the same. Ought from an is...


ha. ahhhhhhhhh. ah. okay, so in the Proving Grounds you'll find a topic/poll on morality. And in that topic you'll find me, actually, arguing -for- the side of yes, you can derive an ought from an is. I know...Why there and not here. Nevermind that for now. That said, I, frankly, was unable to prove my case. I tried to use simple rationale and logic, but ran into a serious gap in knowledge it terms of ... shall we say the more lexical components to the argument. So I read up on it, and my reading led to more reading and then more reading, finally I realized that really the issue itself is still divided, and that the best example somehow revolved around a word playing game involving the simple sentence "Go and open the door." Yeah, darn British and their word play. So I gave up. This would be why I made the comment about "long-winded" ... I really hate... I mean HATE, word games. Picking apart a word or phrase and parsing it a bunch of different ways just so what you're trying to prove sounds right, it's annoying, and to me a disservice.


So maybe you can do better? Ultimately what you've undertaken by entering this debate is proving that you can derive an ought from an is. I wish you good luck, because I cannot do so, nor would I really understand if you did, lol. It's like that dude in my math class that somehow proved to me pi was actually 5.4 instead of 3.14159--------ontoforever. Someone ELSE was able to see right through his "joke" proof and was like, nah you're wrong and here's why, whereas I, I was like, yeah that makes sense, pi is 5.4 cool! >< nerds.


And yeah, I know full well the implication. By enjoying meat, I am contradicting myself. I may find that humans are morally altruistic at the genetic level and yet I also believe that killing animals for sustenance is perfectly fine. This means I really do believe that humans > animals and that I employ this as prejudice. I will admit it. One day the Planet of the Apes may come true and my head will be on a pike, or used as a toilet. In the meantime, I'll continue to use animals for my own selfish purposes, because though I feel humans deserve my charity, animals deserve my fork.

Well at least you admit that its prejudice, I suppose. Why is it that you are comfortable with exercising discrimination? Is the real problem here that you are unable to adequately empathize with other animals?

Yes, I am certainly unsure how we are to objectively prove that you can derive an “ought to” from what is, but are you suggesting that this means we should behave as there are no consequences to our actions? You would find nothing wrong with someone who chooses to cause humans to suffer because of their own selfish desires? Everything is free game? Fortunately, the majority of people are sensible enough to realize that this would lead to a society that is neither functioning nor safe. As I said before, there is certainly no way to objectively prove that we ought to promote the well being of society and individuals instead of suffering, but we also can’t show without a doubt that one must use evidence and logic to arrive at conclusions. That is to say, some things are really just common sense. What else are we to do exactly?

 

[Sucumbio]

Well at least you admit that its prejudice, I suppose. Why is it that you are comfortable with exercising discrimination? Is the real problem here that you are unable to adequately empathize with other animals?

Basically. It's different if one sees the suffering right in front of them. I wouldn't enjoy going to a restaurant that slaughtered the animal right at the table, in other words. I'd not eat somewhere where it happened in the back room, where you could hear the harrowing screams muffled through the walls, the waiter emerging all covered in spattered blood. These things are what makes it more "real." Buying packaged meat at the grocer, well... it's just lumps of meat. There's a disconnect. Enough of one so much so that I don't -feel- anything.

Yes, I am certainly unsure how we are to objectively prove that you can derive an “ought to” from what is, but are you suggesting that this means we should behave as there are no consequences to our actions? You would find nothing wrong with someone who chooses to cause humans to suffer because of their own selfish desires? Everything is free game? Fortunately, the majority of people are sensible enough to realize that this would lead to a society that is neither functioning nor safe. As I said before, there is certainly no way to objectively prove that we ought to promote the well being of society and individuals instead of suffering, but we also can’t show without a doubt that one must use evidence and logic to arrive at conclusions. That is to say, some things are really just common sense. What else are we to do exactly?

Well as I said, look at the other thread. You'll notice that I argued for altruism, as in we -can- and should feel empathy towards other humans, that we should not promote suffering for our own selfish desires, etc. So not everything is free game. I also argued that we can objectively prove this, based on research methods dubbed "the science of morality." I don't like the "common sense" attitude because people are too far apart in these senses, it's a slippery slope argument. It leaves too much open for interpretation. I'll say that all humans believe X but then find a human who categorically does not believe it. I'll say "we're all born feeling Y" and then find someone who is not born that way. I'd say all humanity evolved from previous species, and that within those species there are traits that are similar to our own, and that many of those traits are desirable, and yet there are plenty of traits that are considered undesirable.

What are we to do? Well you suggested it, and early on. Consequences. I again urge you to demonstrate how today's meat industry will result in consequences that humankind cannot live with. If this is accomplished, then you'd at least forge a foundation for your position that it is as unshakable as the climate change issue. Proving that animals and humans are alike is frankly a waste of time. It's irrelevant to most humans (including myself as you now know) because they're still lack that fundamental thing that sets us apart from every other living creature - intellect. This gap empowers humans with a superiority complex the likes of which is unmatched anywhere.

 

[Brother AJ]

EDIT: Nihilism: (It is true that-) 'There is no such thing as truth', a principle which implodes. Just like Agnosticism.

Yes, that’s similar to the problem with “moral relativism” which asserts it is true that truth is based upon one’s own personal preference. I was not suggesting that we ought to adhere to nihilism, but merely that it does raise some valid points. I can respect your attempt to establish ethics that are unquestionable, but the fact remains that we are unaware of any properties that exist in the universe that would allow us to objectively establish what is “good” and what is “evil”.

Still, our actions continue to have consequences and it is clear that individuals prefer well being over suffering, so from there we establish various moral theories that seek to address and make sense of this reality. I identify as a deontologist, and as much as I find this ethical theory to be reasonable, I still cannot verify that my conclusions are truly objective in nature. I only think that we ought to keep the latter in mind when having these discussions.

All that said, I’m more than willing to discuss and explore this issue with you. Your moral theory is definitely interesting, but alas, I find it to be horribly exclusive. I believe I have raised adequate objections concerning your perception of other animals that you ought to address. I hope to hear from you again soon.

Basically. It's different if one sees the suffering right in front of them. I wouldn't enjoy going to a restaurant that slaughtered the animal right at the table, in other words. I'd not eat somewhere where it happened in the back room, where you could hear the harrowing screams muffled through the walls, the waiter emerging all covered in spattered blood. These things are what makes it more "real." Buying packaged meat at the grocer, well... it's just lumps of meat. There's a disconnect. Enough of one so much so that I don't -feel- anything.

Why not watch undercover footage of factory farms and slaughterhouses then? That would certainly allow you to make a better connection when you come across said “lumps” of flesh because now you are “aware” of what goes on.

That said, one should really ask if our ability to empathize should even matter. I think it’s better to actually consider it a matter of justice. I might be a sociopath that is unable to empathize with you or any other human, but that of course does not permit me to harm those humans because I lack said empathy. Similarly, I would suggest that merely because we can’t identify as well with chickens, cows, and pigs doesn’t mean they should lose their lives and/or bodily autonomy.

Well as I said, look at the other thread. You'll notice that I argued for altruism, as in we -can- and should feel empathy towards other humans, that we should not promote suffering for our own selfish desires, etc. So not everything is free game. I also argued that we can objectively prove this, based on research methods dubbed "the science of morality." I don't like the "common sense" attitude because people are too far apart in these senses, it's a slippery slope argument. It leaves too much open for interpretation.

I wasn’t suggesting that people merely use their “common sense” to solve complex ethical conundrums, only that it can be said that promoting well being over suffering is a “common sense” that is accepted by the vast populace. We will never be able to escape from this supposition, so the majority of us are not going to sit around trying to objectively prove that we ought to “help people” instead of causing them pain. Personally, I find that we waste time even considering the question in the first place.

“Common sense” is not where it ends obviously, as it is immensely helpful to establish moral theories that allow us to better understand our obligations and duties to those that live amongst us. Some theories are more unreasonable than others obviously, and this is because they frequently treat similar situations as if they were dissimilar. The latter can be said to happen generally because of the existence of various societal prejudices, and I would suggest that it is prejudice that allows us to consciously treat and regard other animals as if they were objects or disposable trash.

So, I would like to ask, how exactly is it that “the science of morality” allows humans to be treated and regarded fairly, but not other animals? Is this research method actually consistent in its reasoning?

I'll say that all humans believe X but then find a human who categorically does not believe it. I'll say "we're all born feeling Y" and then find someone who is not born that way. I'd say all humanity evolved from previous species, and that within those species there are traits that are similar to our own, and that many of those traits are desirable, and yet there are plenty of traits that are considered undesirable.

Could you elaborate on these statements a little more please, as I’m not sure how they are relevant to our conversation? Are you saying that animals are excluded from our moral considerations because they possess certain undesirable traits? What are these traits?

What are we to do? Well you suggested it, and early on. Consequences. I again urge you to demonstrate how today's meat industry will result in consequences that humankind cannot live with. If this is accomplished, then you'd at least forge a foundation for your position that it is as unshakable as the climate change issue. Proving that animals and humans are alike is frankly a waste of time.

As I said before, I cannot demonstrate these consequences.

Not only does your suggestion of appealing to the environmental damages of eating meat ignore animals as individuals, it also doesn’t make sense in the first place as a solution to the abolition of animal agriculture. It is certainly demonstrable that one can still farm animals without contributing so much to climate change and environmental damage, although this would probably still require a drastic reduction in our meat production.

There is more to climate change obviously than eating meat, such as our dependence on unsustainable fuel sources and our massively overpopulated species. Needless to say, appealing to environmental consequences is not going to stop the consumption of meat or other animal products, so what do we do from there?

Well, social movements in the past were not successful because they asserted that oppression of marginalized groups was contributing to a decline in our environment, but because they made active demands for better treatment and the abolition of harmful practices which created debate within society and eventually lead to social change:

http://fortheabolitionofveganism.blogspot.com/2013/07/great-comic-by-insolente-veggie.html
http://fortheabolitionofveganism.blogspot.com/2013/07/great-comic-by-insolente-veggie.html
That people don’t want to change is not surprising me. The status quo will always resist radical ideals, and it has been this way for thousands of years. It was and still is difficult to get the privileged in our society to empathize with persons of color and women, but we are able to do so all the same. To do this is NOT a “waste of time”.

It's irrelevant to most humans (including myself as you now know) because they're still lack that fundamental thing that sets us apart from every other living creature - intellect. This gap empowers humans with a superiority complex the likes of which is unmatched anywhere.

That depends on how you define “intellect” of course. Regardless, this superiority complex is quite unwarranted. There are many humans that are without the average intelligence of their species, such as the severely mentally ******** and infants, and can even be said to be LESS intelligent than many other animal species. Still, we consider these kinds of humans to be worthy of respect. Why? We value the human species much more than mere “intellect”. Last time I checked, valuing DNA and genetics is not a very valid moral code.

 

[Welshy91]

Is it okay to bug bomb your house? Do you lament the loss of life when you splatter an insect on your wind shield? Bleeding hearts piss me off because it just breaks their wittle hearts when a cute animal is being killed but they don't seem to care when the not-so-cute creatures are getting murderized. I don't see PETA throwing a fit when pesticides are being used. Hypocrites, the lot of them, and so is anyone else who says killing animals is wrong but turns around and stomps a spider for being near them. If animal life is sacred then it should apply to ALL animals, even the ones we hate.

#killallthethings

 

[LarsINTJ]

Is it okay to bug bomb your house? Do you lament the loss of life when you splatter an insect on your wind shield? Bleeding hearts piss me off because it just breaks their wittle hearts when a cute animal is being killed but they don't seem to care when the not-so-cute creatures are getting murderized. I don't see PETA throwing a fit when pesticides are being used. Hypocrites, the lot of them, and so is anyone else who says killing animals is wrong but turns around and stomps a spider for being near them. If animal life is sacred then it should apply to ALL animals, even the ones we hate.

#killallthethings

Yeah, it's a fallacy, if all life is sacred then we're left with an impossible situation in the instance that life is threatened - Do we kill life in order to defend life or allow one life to destroy another? Both options violate such a principle.

Animal rights activists tend to highlight a moral distinction between human life and the life of lesser animals (perfectly valid) while simultaneously pushing that all life deserves equal consideration. Contradiction + fallacy = very bad philosophy.

 

[Brother AJ]

Is it okay to bug bomb your house? Do you lament the loss of life when you splatter an insect on your wind shield? Bleeding hearts piss me off because it just breaks their wittle hearts when a cute animal is being killed but they don't seem to care when the not-so-cute creatures are getting murderized. I don't see PETA throwing a fit when pesticides are being used. Hypocrites, the lot of them, and so is anyone else who says killing animals is wrong but turns around and stomps a spider for being near them. If animal life is sacred then it should apply to ALL animals, even the ones we hate.

#killallthethings

Sorry that this subject makes you angry, but there's no need to make generalizations.

I don't use bug bomb, I do lament, I advocate for the rights of supposedly "ugly" creatures, and I don't stomp on tiny bugs or spiders simply because they're near me. Quite a few people object to pesticides as well, but I'm uncertain if they're necessary to protect our crops which are vital for our own survival.

You raise some interesting points, but ultimately this is little more than an appeal to hypocrisy. That some people are hypocritical within their own cause does NOT inherently invalid the arguments in support of animal rights, it just means that they're hypocrites. I'd be happy to debate this subject with you though.

Yeah, it's a fallacy, if all life is sacred then we're left with an impossible situation in the instance that life is threatened - Do we kill life in order to defend life or allow one life to destroy another? Both options violate such a principle.

I would argue that only cases of necessary self-defense justifies taking a life, and I think this is equally true when it comes to other animal life.

Animal rights activists tend to highlight a moral distinction between human life and the life of lesser animals (perfectly valid) while simultaneously pushing that all life deserves equal consideration. Contradiction + fallacy = very bad philosophy.

First, please show how other animals are objectively "lesser" than human beings. You say this quite a lot.

Second, countless animal rights theorists have addressed this "contradiction" and I did so within this very thread. Please consider the following:

There are certainly moral distinctions that we should be making between human beings, but while recognizing our differences we must ALSO recognize our similarities and dole out consideration where consideration is due. We would not, for example, charge a toddler with murder for pushing their mother down the stairs, but we WOULD still consider it murder to kill said toddler. Young and/or severely mentally deficient humans and other animals cannot be said to understand and fully comprehend the nature of violence and its consequences, but it is still the case that they possess preferences and that not to be harmed is certainly one of them. Who are we to reject these preferences when said individuals are doing nothing to actively harm us? Perhaps they cannot respect our preferences to the same extent, but this is obviously something that they cannot control and are, therefore, not at fault for.

 

[Welshy91]

If humans are equal to animals, and it is wrong to kill animals, then animals are wrong for killing animals. By this logic, my dog is evil because he kills squirrels/rabbits/anything he catches in the yard. He doesn't kill because he's hungry, he kills because it is his instinct. If it's ok for animals to kill because it is their instinct, and humans are animals, then it is ok for humans to kill animals.

There's no two ways with this. We're either above animals and are in the position to dictate when they live or die, or we are on the same level as them and the rules that apply to them apply to us. If the latter is true, then we're just animals killing animals, which is a perfectly natural occurrence.