The first question to address is whether the effects of our actions on other animals have any moral significance at all. Singer argues that it does, because if a being suffers, the fact that it is not a member of our species cannot be a moral reason for failing to take its suffering into account. Doing so would be analogous to white slaveowners, who denied consideration to the interests of blacks because they were a different race. They believed the suffering of a black is not equal to the suffering of a white, just how some believe the suffering of a nonhuman is not equal to the suffering of a human. The existance of suffering, not the arbitrary distinctions made above, is what matters. Singer thus equates "speciesism" to racism.
This is not to say that nonhumans are equal to humans in respect to intelligence, strength, ability to experience suffering, etc. However, humans are not equal in regards to each other in these characteristics, either. The moral basis of equality among humans is not equality in fact, but the principle of equal consideration of interests, and this principle should be extended to nonhumans that have interests.
Do nonhumans have interest, though? Singer takes the view that only a being with subjective experiences, such as that of pleasure or pain, can have interests in the full sense of the term. At the least, they have the interest of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. It is then necessary to prove whether animals feel pleasure or pain. It is apparent that vertebrate animals have nervous systems broadly similar to ours, and when exposed to stimuli that would be painful to us, tend to react similarly. I don't think then, that it would be very controversial to say that most mammals and birds, at least, feel pleasure and pain like we do (though perhaps not to the same degree). If they feel pleasure and pain, then they have interests, interests which should be considered. For the sake of the rest of this arguement, lets limit the term nonhuman to purely mammals and birds.
Giving equal consideration of two beings does not mean holding their lives to equal value. If there is the choice between saving the life of a human and a dog, it would probably be best to save the human, because he will have greater awareness of what is happening, will suffer more because of this, may have family and loved ones that will suffer because of his death, and likely has greater potential for future happiness. This would be in accordance with equal consideration of interests; the dogs interests are not discounted, but merely found to be lesser than the humans. However, if the same situation were recreated, but this time the human was severly mentally defective and had no family, it might be in better interest to save the dog.
This brings us to the meat industry. I think we are all aware of what goes on in meat processing. Animals are severly abused for the sake of productivity. Chickes are put four to a cage the size of a page of The New York Times. Their cages have wire floors that damage the bird's feet. The floors are sloped so eggs roll down easily, but this makes it impossible for the chickens to rest comfortably. All of their natural insticts are thwarted; they cannot stretch their wings, scratch the ground, build a nest, etc. Although some may argue they have never known other conditions, they have still been observed trying vainly to carry out their insticts. They get frustrated at this and try to peck each other to death. Because of this, their beaks are clipped off. Other animals have similar experiences. So, for the sake of eating meat, animals are essentially stripped of all of their interests.
What about the other side? All that humans aquire from eating meat is fufilling a taste. It is easily possible for humans today to live without eating meat, so it is not necessary for survival. Thus, our practice of rearing and killing other animals in order to eat them is a clear instance of sacrificing the most important interests of one group of beings to satisfy trivial interests of our own. So, someone is morally obliged to not eat meat if they weigh these interests.
And that is about the best I can sum up his argument of the immorality of eating meat based on how it is processed.
Your opinions? Is his argument valid? Is it moral to eat meat based on how it is produced?
I wonder if anyone will actually read this 
And unlike animals off to the butcher, the spare parts(bones, hides) won't be used in other products, thus animals are wasteful. Skaw fucked around with this message on 05-13-2004 at 03:57 AM.
quote:
From the book of Skaw, chapter 3, verse 16:
My reason for eating meat, is because given the chance, cows or pigs would eat you.
If I hadn't seen Snatch, I would call that argument preposterous.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
It's the natural order. Duh.
You mean we have a moral right to eat animals because we are stronger than them?
Or do you mean we have a moral right to eat animals because thats how its always been? Zair fucked around with this message on 05-13-2004 at 04:04 AM.
quote:
How.... Zair.... uughhhhhh:
You mean we have a moral right to eat animals because we are stronger than them?Or do you mean we have a moral right to eat animals because thats how its always been?
Morality has nothing to do with natural law, dummy.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan was naked while typing this:
Morality has nothing to do with natural law, dummy.
Well, the morality of eating meat is what is being argued in this thread.
Can you explain what you mean by natural law? If natural law is that we eat animals lower on the food chain, I'd say it isn't very applicable to humans anymore. If that is what you mean by natural, then we can get along fine without it.
What do you mean by natural law? I think I'm a bit confused.
For starters, I'd like to point out that none of this is an argument against eating meat at all, this is an argument against treating animals poorly. The two do not go hand in hand at all. In fact, vegetarians cause more animal suffering than omnivores since farming practices are more ecologically disruptive than grazing practices, making them the evil ones according to their own "least harm" principle.
Secondly, I'm perfectly fine benefitting from the suffering of any number of non-sentient creatures. If an organism is not self-aware, then it is worthless except in it's potential benefit to self-aware organisms. Animals are not sentient and it's a childish absurdity to project sentient behavior onto them. They are simply anatomically incapable of cognative thought. Some will argue the relative advancement of apes, but that's moot because you don't see us going around eating apes, do you?
To argue that simply because animals flee from hazardous situations and pursue beneficial ones elevates them to the same level of moral consideration as other human beings is baseless.
quote:
Mr. Parcelan had this to say about Optimus Prime:
I think I can't really explain it all that well at this time, so I'll boil it down to: I like eating animals and I think I'll keep doing it.
I feel the same way. I'm not so sure what I'm doing is moral though.
I certainly don't practice what I'm preaching in this thread. I'm not trying to convert anyone.
Purely a morality discussion.
So does every other thing in the world.
Pleasure is something good. Be it eating something that's easily stored to fat or converted to energy (simple sugars), or procreation, or whatever. Pain is pain because it's bad. You recoil from it because it in some way shortens your life, or whatever. Fire hot. Ow. Don't touch.
Just because other living things have these basic instincts doesn't give an excuse to anthropomorphize them into something they're not.
We eat meat because we eat meat. Simple as that.
Hell, if you look at it in a certain way, rocks flee from pain and seek pleasure, too.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Maradon! said:
Plants flee from pain and seek pleasure as well. Does that make it morally wrong to eat plants?Hell, if you look at it in a certain way, rocks flee from pain and seek pleasure, too.
PLANTS ARE MURDER!
DON'T EAT ANYTHING!
quote:
Maradon! got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:For starters, I'd like to point out that none of this is an argument against eating meat at all, this is an argument against treating animals poorly. The two do not go hand in hand at all.
Correct. It is purely an argument against eating meat that is mass produced in the way it currently is. It is not applicable to a situation such as shooting a deer in the wild and cooking it up.
quote:
In fact, vegetarians cause more animal suffering than omnivores since farming practices are more ecologically disruptive than grazing practices, making them the evil ones according to their own "least harm" principle.
I was not aware of this. Can you show me any proof of it? I'm pretty dubious.
quote:
Secondly, I'm perfectly fine benefitting from the suffering of any number of non-sentient creatures. If an organism is not self-aware, then it is worthless except in it's potential benefit to self-aware organisms. Animals are not sentient and it's a childish absurdity to project sentient behavior onto them. They are simply anatomically incapable of cognative thought. Some will argue the relative advancement of apes, but that's moot because you don't see us going around eating apes, do you?
The point isn't whether animals are self aware or not, it is whether their interests should be taken into account. Something can have interests without being self aware. Like I said, something that feels pleasure and pain at least has the interests of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. If these interests hold no importance at all to you, then what is your opinion of animal abuse laws? Should there be laws against beating or killing dogs for no reason at all? Should you be able to buy a pet and then mutilate it?
I'll get to a more specific definition of the pleasure/pain thing in response to Delphi and your other post..
quote:
Delphi Aegis wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Pleasure is something good. Be it eating something that's easily stored to fat or converted to energy (simple sugars), or procreation, or whatever. Pain is pain because it's bad. You recoil from it because it in some way shortens your life, or whatever. Fire hot. Ow. Don't touch.
No, you are oversimplifying the definitions of pleasure and pain. They are not just something "good" and "bad". For pain and pleasure, I am refering to the actual physical sensation that is only accompanied with the required nervous system. Also, mental anguish or pleasure, that could be experienced by humans, which I suppose is also only available to those with complex nervous systems.
quote:
Maradon! was naked while typing this:
Plants flee from pain and seek pleasure as well. Does that make it morally wrong to eat plants?Hell, if you look at it in a certain way, rocks flee from pain and seek pleasure, too.
Plants do not seek pleasure and pain, nor do they have interests. While you might say that it is in the interest of a tree to be watered, this sense of the word is not the sense covered by the principle of equal consideration of interest. All we mean when we say that it is in the interest of the tree to be watered is that the tree needs water if it is to continue to live and grow normally. We do not mean that the tree has any preference in the matter.
quote:
Zairing:
Plants do not seek pleasure and pain, nor do they have interests.
Wrongo, plants lean into sunlight and spread their root bases to seek water. Just like trees, though, you cannot establish that animals have any preference in the matter. This is all moot anyway since, like I already established in my post before last, having "interests" is not a valid basis for granting moral consideration.
quote:
Maradon!'s account was hax0red to write:
Wrongo, plants lean into sunlight and spread their root bases to seek water. Just like trees, though, you cannot establish that animals have any preference in the matter. This is all moot anyway since, like I already established in my post before last, having "interests" is not a valid basis for granting moral consideration.
Ok, so you believe no animals should be granted any moral consideration, correct? Then, you are totally against animal cruelty laws, correct?
Also, have you found any evidence that farming is more harmful to the environment than raising livestock? Zair fucked around with this message on 05-13-2004 at 04:54 AM.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Zair booooze lime pole over bench lick:
The point isn't whether animals are self aware or not, it is whether their interests should be taken into account. Something can have interests without being self aware. Like I said, something that feels pleasure and pain at least has the interests of pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. If these interests hold no importance at all to you, then what is your opinion of animal abuse laws? Should there be laws against beating or killing dogs for no reason at all? Should you be able to buy a pet and then mutilate it?
Least Harm principle suggests carnivorous diet.
No, animals only have "interests" in a broad, genetic sense. Like a lot of vegan arguments I've heard, attributing "interests" to animals is really twisting symantics, animals do not have individual "interests" in the sense that humans have individual "interests." No, the "interests" of animals should not be taken into account - non-sentient organisms are worthless except in their value to sentient organisms.
No, I don't agree with animal cruelty laws in all cases. I agree with some animal cruelty laws, because the behavior of torturing an animal generally indicates a sick mind. Yes, you should be able to buy a pet and then mutilate it, but if that's the sort of thing you'd like to do, you probably belong in a hospital. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 05-13-2004 at 05:01 AM.
Look at your teeth. You have pointy ones, and sharp ones. You have flat ones, and wide ones. They are designed to Tear, Cut, Rip, Shred, and Crush. Designed by nature to do these things. This is very handy, because, plants and animals give us the fuel our bodies need to continue hunting down things to kill and eat, such as plants and animals.
Besides, animals are dumb. If they were smarter, they would design a firearm that could be fired with a cloven hoof, and hunt humans.
EXAMPLE!
Dolphins. The US Navy trained dolphins to wear a.45acp firearm strapped to thier nose. It was fired when the dolphin rammed something. A dolphin, in case you did not know, attacks things by ramming them. Ever seen a video of Dolphins killing a shark? They NOSE it to death in the gills. Now, add the penetration power of the .45acp handgun round. They were taught to hunt humans.
If you ever can prove to me that a starving dolphin with a gun on his nose WOULDN'T kill a human for the purposes of consumption.. I'll stop eating meat.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Maradon! said this:
This argument makes a lot of assumptions.For starters, I'd like to point out that none of this is an argument against eating meat at all, this is an argument against treating animals poorly. The two do not go hand in hand at all. In fact, vegetarians cause more animal suffering than omnivores since farming practices are more ecologically disruptive than grazing practices, making them the evil ones according to their own "least harm" principle.
Secondly, I'm perfectly fine benefitting from the suffering of any number of non-sentient creatures. If an organism is not self-aware, then it is worthless except in it's potential benefit to self-aware organisms. Animals are not sentient and it's a childish absurdity to project sentient behavior onto them. They are simply anatomically incapable of cognative thought. Some will argue the relative advancement of apes, but that's moot because you don't see us going around eating apes, do you?
To argue that simply because animals flee from hazardous situations and pursue beneficial ones elevates them to the same level of moral consideration as other human beings is baseless.
So you'd argue that it's perfectly okay to mistreat a newborn human baby? They're not overly self-aware, you know. Zaza fucked around with this message on 05-13-2004 at 05:55 AM.
quote:
Tal NSFW!! had this to say about Captain Planet:
If we were not supposed to eat animals, they would not be made of meat.Look at your teeth. You have pointy ones, and sharp ones. You have flat ones, and wide ones. They are designed to Tear, Cut, Rip, Shred, and Crush. Designed by nature to do these things. This is very handy, because, plants and animals give us the fuel our bodies need to continue hunting down things to kill and eat, such as plants and animals.
Besides, animals are dumb. If they were smarter, they would design a firearm that could be fired with a cloven hoof, and hunt humans.
EXAMPLE!
Dolphins. The US Navy trained dolphins to wear a.45acp firearm strapped to thier nose. It was fired when the dolphin rammed something. A dolphin, in case you did not know, attacks things by ramming them. Ever seen a video of Dolphins killing a shark? They NOSE it to death in the gills. Now, add the penetration power of the .45acp handgun round. They were taught to hunt humans.
If you ever can prove to me that a starving dolphin with a gun on his nose WOULDN'T kill a human for the purposes of consumption.. I'll stop eating meat.
Are you even aware that noone even argued wheter we are "supposed" to eat animals or not?
And the good old argument of how things are "supposed" to be is inherently hilarious. Were we "designed" to construct societies or have laws? Not really, we were "intended" into pack creatures. By the way we were "íntended", we should be killing each other over food and having fistfights to determine who should lead the flock. Unless you believe in some divine will that speaks unto us to consume animals, what we eat and what we don't is entirely in our own hands.
quote:
Verily, Tal NSFW!! doth proclaim:
The US Navy trained dolphins to wear a.45acp firearm strapped to thier nose.
All I want is sharks with freaking laser beams attached to their heads!!
quote:
Mr. Parcelan was naked while typing this:
Why do you always get so pissed off in arguments, Zaza?
I'm pissed off? That's news. 
quote:
Zaza painfully thought these words up:
Are you even aware that noone even argued wheter we are "supposed" to eat animals or not?
No, not really. You see, I didn't read all that hippy crap the others posted.
I just assumed that questioning the morality of something might mean we were questioning if we were supposed to. You know.. if it was right, or wrong.
quote:
Tal NSFW!! had this to say about dark elf butts:
No, not really. You see, I didn't read all that hippy crap the others posted.I just assumed that questioning the morality of something might mean we were questioning if we were supposed to. You know.. if it was right, or wrong.
That's what I thought too at first. I don't believe it's immoral to eat meat. But I bothered to read the text, and I think it has a point in that it's wrong to treat animals in an unnecessarily cruel way.
quote:
Did someone say Zair:
You mean we have a moral right to eat animals because we are stronger than them?Or do you mean we have a moral right to eat animals because thats how its always been?
The equating of racism and speciesism is insane. A black man and a white man are identical except for skin color and facial features. A man and a pig are in no way related, other than they are both mammals. There is no reason to feel sympothy with their suffering other than a misguided sense of consience.
The fact of the matter is, morality doesn't enter into the equation. The order of the world is eat or be eaten. As the species on the top of the food chain, simply having the ability of being able to not eat animals thanks to scientific methods of getting the nutients from them elsewhere does not mean that suddenly the order has changed, because it hasn't. We don't need a moral right to eat animals; It's just the way things are supposed to work. Humans are not designed to live off plants alone.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Zaza!
That's what I thought too at first. I don't believe it's immoral to eat meat. But I bothered to read the text, and I think it has a point in that it's wrong to treat animals in an unnecessarily cruel way.
Ok, I still didnt read any of the hippy crap. But I agree. Animals should be slaughtered in the most painless way possible.
Steak and salad, with a hot baked potato filled with all the trimmings. Maybe mushrooms and onions too.
SOMEBODY KILL ME SOME PLANTS AND MEAT!!! STAT!
quote:
Maradon! got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Secondly, I'm perfectly fine benefitting from the suffering of any number of non-sentient creatures. If an organism is not self-aware, then it is worthless except in it's potential benefit to self-aware organisms. Animals are not sentient and it's a childish absurdity to project sentient behavior onto them. They are simply anatomically incapable of cognative thought. Some will argue the relative advancement of apes, but that's moot because you don't see us going around eating apes, do you?
On the contrary, every animal that is the proud owner of a nervous system is sentient. That includes every vertebrate; it's what a nervous system is all about! Cognition (to varying degrees) on the other hand, is endemic to higher order mammals. It's particularily advantagious to carnivorous or omnivorous higher-order mammals. Take the simpler example of cognition; the lion interpreting the stimuli of the gazelle, and responding accordingly. Negative feedback is the underlying principle behind cognition, for that matter. in·cor·rect ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nk-rkt)
adj.
1. Not correct; erroneous or wrong: an incorrect answer.
2. Defective; faulty: incorrect programming of the computer.
3. Improper; inappropriate: incorrect behavior.
4. Maradon; concentrates too damn hard on misinterpretations of Pavlov's work.
quote:
Maradon! wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
In fact, vegetarians cause more animal suffering than omnivores since farming practices are more ecologically disruptive than grazing practices, making them the evil ones according to their own "least harm" principle.
This on the other hand is true, most agricultural practices involving crops are extremely destructive. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 05-13-2004 at 11:46 AM.
Does chocolate have feelings too?
quote:
Gravity'sAngel had this to say about Cuba:
I'm craving lobster right about now. And broccoli!Does chocolate have feelings too?
Chocolate is made from the Cocoa bean, of course it has feelings! Haven't you ever seen a Cocoa bean beg for its life when the cruel, heartless farmers come to pluck it from its leavy abode?!
quote:
A sleep deprived Zair stammered:
Well, the morality of eating meat is what is being argued in this thread.Can you explain what you mean by natural law? If natural law is that we eat animals lower on the food chain, I'd say it isn't very applicable to humans anymore. If that is what you mean by natural, then we can get along fine without it.
What do you mean by natural law? I think I'm a bit confused.
All that matters in the natural world is the right of power. We have the power to exploit animals, therefore we have the right to do it. What must however be considered, is that some things we the ability to do, but do not have the power to survive doing, and as such do not really have the power to do. Eating meat is quite sustainable however, and thus a-ok! Pvednes fucked around with this message on 05-13-2004 at 11:51 AM.
For instance, raccoons have been observed to splash water on their forepaws before eating. Early zoologists believed this was out of some civilized desire to be clean. It's not.
Or sharks. Surely, if animals are akin to people, then sharks are murderous primitives from before the age of the dinosaurs. Tigers, Lions, Hyenas, even Bears of various varieties are all, fundamentally speaking (if going by the anthropomorphosizing mentality inherent in the argument here), pathological murderers.
If you read into his statements enough, you could broadly assume that he's making an argument for the domestication of the wild. After all, if these animals are like primitive little people that don't know better, and we domesticate dogs and such, then they should behave like properly civilized people. That goes against the very balance of nature; humans have been dicking around with things they shouldn't (the rainforests, for instance) for a very long time. Domesticating all the animals is a bad idea.
Of course that's a ludicrous expansion, deliberately expounded on to make a point, and that point is that this gentleman is basing a lot of his initial argument on a severely flawed argument (IE Animals have feelings and rudimentary morality, which elevates them to a higher level of existence on par with umans) when in fact the answer is much more simple (humans, like all animals, have similar responses to positive and negative stimuli, but that has very little to do with actual sentience).
His other arguments mix animal cruelty rhetoric with other overhyped arguments. It makes for fascinating science fiction, but as a moral, ethical, or philosophical point it lacks weight.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
