Why do we have an ethical responsibility to preserve higher life forms?
Meat production generally have shitty "stock" treatment and is an incredibly wasteful use of resources. Shoot your own game out in the wilds or eat produce.
So shooting animals out in the wild is okay? That's pretty interesting. I'd argue that shooting an animal also causes it tremendous amounts of pain. Surely you can avoid it because you are able to survive on produce.
I dunno about you, but if I had to pick then I'd rather be gunned down from 400 yards while going about my business than raised in deplorable conditions, overdosed on antibiotics, kept in the dark in my own filth, and killed at an age 1/10 of my normal life expectancy.
peta are nothing but shitheads and animal killers themselves
I have no sympathy for them, their case or any of their supporters
Also, Human lives are always more important than animals, but I agree that senseless suffering should be minimized, which is why I only buy eggs which are at least free-range.
That being said, I don't mind anyone being a vegetarian, or even vegan
But violently trying to spread that?
You've got your priorities mixed up
"PETA fanatics are dicks" is a perfectly good argument against irrational thought and I halfheartedly support treating them as such. I recall in middle school we were leaving campus and there were PETA protesters there being ass hats because they served us milk and chicken nuggets.
They were showing middle school children a severed udder and head of a cow that had begun to rot, passing out these horrible stickers of cute little baby chicks with the "I am not a nugget" written on them.
Chicken nuggets and chocolate milk may not be the healthiest food in the world, but it's cheap as hell and provided us with an affordable and filling lunch that kept us us with our minimal nutritional value, which was much needed because many of us were on lunch programs and didn't get any other nutritional food since all our families could afford at home was a bucket of KFC for the family every night. Another issue for another topic maybe.
I, being the average smart ass 8th grader who though he was tough shit, chucked a carton of milk at one of them and sprayed them with the fortified goodness of watery cafeteria milk. I felt pissed off, I also felt like I had a good reason to be but in reflection it was not much better than what they were doing. It was still funny as hell and totally worth the detention.
Why do we have an ethical responsibility to preserve higher life forms?
Meat production generally have shitty "stock" treatment and is an incredibly wasteful use of resources. Shoot your own game out in the wilds or eat produce.
So shooting animals out in the wild is okay? That's pretty interesting. I'd argue that shooting an animal also causes it tremendous amounts of pain. Surely you can avoid it because you are able to survive on produce.
I dunno about you, but if I had to pick then I'd rather be gunned down from 400 yards while going about my business than raised in deplorable conditions, overdosed on antibiotics, kept in the dark in my own filth, and killed at an age 1/10 of my normal life expectancy.
Would you choose not existing over either?
Because that's what 90% of the livestock we currrently have are looking at if farming had never taken off.
I mean really, "PETA fanatics are dicks" is not an argument against vegetarianism or veganism any more than Osama or Bush can be used to argue against Islam and Christianity.
I see what you are saying, but the problem with vegetarianism and veganism is that the myths they perpetuate automatically put their proponents on a morally superior footing. Said myths are so prevalent and are preached so forcefully that even many meat-eaters believe them.
Sorry, what are these myths that are so intrinsic to a vegetarian lifestyle that you feel the need to indict vegetarianism itself?
If you're referring to things like "It is unethical to cause unnecessary suffering", then yeah, someone who argues this while making an effort to minimize unnecessary suffering is acting in a morally superior way than someone who doesn't care about the process behind their Big Mac.
Err, this would only be true if we do in fact agree that eating animals is immoral.
And, guess what: you can eat animals and still care about minimizing their suffering to a reasonable level.
It is the same argument: both are equally high life forms. Is a lion killing another lion in a fight wrong? Why or why not? If you believe it is okay because lions do not have the capacity for reasoning, what about two mentally retarded humans who attack each other? Should we separate them, or should we just let the stronger kill the weaker?
I think that once a life form is above a certain threshold, we should seek to preserve it's life. Obviously we should separate the mentally handicapped fighting, because no retards dying is superior to 1 retard dying.
Below the threshold of human life, we should seek to preserve the higher life form in our own dealings with it, because we are humans that have a sense of right and wrong. While we should seek to preserve lower life forms in a grand scale, Lower life forms business among themselves is no concern of ours. The ultimate goal of this model is for a just human society, not a just natural world.
Umm, it is shot because we can shoot it. Not because we are the higher life form. All social animals go to certain extent to protect their kind.
Well, obviously we shoot it because we have the ability to. I'm describing an ethical model where shooting it is the ethical thing to do. The model is based off the premise that life is good, and It's made to create a society where human lives are most important, but some consideration is given to lower life forms, and the reason I'm describing it is because there are situations where we have to choose between life forms.
Oh boy, you know what my favorite conversation is?
Random Person: "Want some HAMBURGER?!?!"
PotatoNinja: "No thanks I don't eat meat."
Random Person: "What the fuck is wrong with eating meat?"
Psycho vegetarians who can't even be in the same room as someone who eats meat? Assholes. Obnoxious omnivores trying to project their dietary insecurity onto vegetarians who just want to eat in fucking peace? Assholes.
In fact I think generally speaking the latter category is more annoying, as they're more common and the former category tends to at least know they're being gigantic toolbags.
Also, I take issue with your suggestion that just because the lion doesn't know what cruelty is, we should tolerate it. If someone has a brain disorder and they go on a serial killing streak, but their disorder prevents them from knowing what cruelty is, should we just let them be, or should we lock them up? Clearly we should lock them up.
I know I'm going to reget jumping into this. Anyway, animals can absolutley do things that would be immoral for a human to do. They are animals, and by this fact alone they cannot commit an immoral act.
If some stoner wanders past my fence and into my garage and I savagely beat him to death, I am morally responsible for that act. If some stoner wanders into a bear's den and gets mauled, that's too bad. The bear was being a bear. We may put safeguards in place to prevent this in the future, but we don't need to lockup the bear. If we already have safeguards in place and the stoner ignored them (like signs and whatnot) they we may not have to do anything.
We wouldn't incarcerate the bear, but we'd damn sure kill him.
Not having a system in place to put animals in prison after they commit violent acts doesn't mean we don't punish them.
I don't think we should, but that's another thread I guess. What if the stoner was provoking the bear intentionally, like poking it with a stick while wearing a beef jerky jacket? Is there no situation a human should exercise restraint and an animal won't where you feel the animal shouldn't be "punished"?
Not really. It's more like consciousness is sacred, rather than life is sacred.
And all definitions of consciousness necessarily omit plants from the club?
Uh, yes? Do plants feel plain, or desire, or empathy? Do they have brains? They're like... Biological computers. Sure, they do things, but so do computers. They don't have free will.
It is the same argument: both are equally high life forms. Is a lion killing another lion in a fight wrong? Why or why not? If you believe it is okay because lions do not have the capacity for reasoning, what about two mentally retarded humans who attack each other? Should we separate them, or should we just let the stronger kill the weaker?
I think that once a life form is above a certain threshold, we should seek to preserve it's life. Obviously we should separate the mentally handicapped fighting, because no retards dying is superior to 1 retard dying.
Below the threshold of human life, we should seek to preserve the higher life form in our own dealings with it, because we are humans that have a sense of right and wrong. While we should seek to preserve lower life forms in a grand scale, Lower life forms business among themselves is no concern of ours. The ultimate goal of this model is for a just human society, not a just natural world.
If the ultimate goal is for a just human society, how does killing animals for eating makes human society unjust?
Also, might I remind you that arbitrarily placing a threshold and applying two different standards to the life forms according to their placement in relation to it is making your moral stance severely lack any integrity?
Not really. It's more like consciousness is sacred, rather than life is sacred.
And all definitions of consciousness necessarily omit plants from the club?
Uh, yes? Do plants feel plain, or desire, or empathy? Do they have brains? They're like... Biological computers. Sure, they do things, but so do computers. They don't have free will.
Some plants have awareness of their surroundings. Surely that accounts for something.
Not really. It's more like consciousness is sacred, rather than life is sacred.
And all definitions of consciousness necessarily omit plants from the club?
Uh, yes? Do plants feel plain, or desire, or empathy? Do they have brains? They're like... Biological computers. Sure, they do things, but so do computers. They don't have free will.
Some plants have awareness of their surroundings. Surely that accounts for something.
Reaction to the surroundings is not the same thing as awareness.
Also, I take issue with your suggestion that just because the lion doesn't know what cruelty is, we should tolerate it. If someone has a brain disorder and they go on a serial killing streak, but their disorder prevents them from knowing what cruelty is, should we just let them be, or should we lock them up? Clearly we should lock them up.
I know I'm going to reget jumping into this. Anyway, animals can absolutley do things that would be immoral for a human to do. They are animals, and by this fact alone they cannot commit an immoral act.
If some stoner wanders past my fence and into my garage and I savagely beat him to death, I am morally responsible for that act. If some stoner wanders into a bear's den and gets mauled, that's too bad. The bear was being a bear. We may put safeguards in place to prevent this in the future, but we don't need to lockup the bear. If we already have safeguards in place and the stoner ignored them (like signs and whatnot) they we may not have to do anything.
We wouldn't incarcerate the bear, but we'd damn sure kill him.
Not having a system in place to put animals in prison after they commit violent acts doesn't mean we don't punish them.
I don't think we should, but that's another thread I guess. What if the stoner was provoking the bear intentionally, like poking it with a stick while wearing a beef jerky jacket? Is there no situation a human should exercise restraint and an animal won't where you feel the animal shouldn't be "punished"?
I don't necessarily feel the animal should be "punished" for what happened, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. It's just a given in virtually any human society that an animal that proves itself dangerous will be removed by force. In most cases, even animals that simply might prove dangerous later. It's the system through which we've become the dominant species, after all.
I find the intersection of humanistic thought and naturalism to be very interesting, for exactly these reasons.
Are we right to remove threats? Is the bear doing something wrong by acting instinctually? Are we entitled to expect it to act in a manner outside its nature just because humans are involved? These are all very relevant questions that don't have pat answers.
Why do we have an ethical responsibility to preserve higher life forms?
Meat production generally have shitty "stock" treatment and is an incredibly wasteful use of resources. Shoot your own game out in the wilds or eat produce.
So shooting animals out in the wild is okay? That's pretty interesting. I'd argue that shooting an animal also causes it tremendous amounts of pain. Surely you can avoid it because you are able to survive on produce.
I dunno about you, but if I had to pick then I'd rather be gunned down from 400 yards while going about my business than raised in deplorable conditions, overdosed on antibiotics, kept in the dark in my own filth, and killed at an age 1/10 of my normal life expectancy.
Would you choose not existing over either?
Because that's what 90% of the livestock we currrently have are looking at if farming had never taken off.
Are you actually trying to compare the ethical treatment of living animals with the desire of non-existent animals to exist?
Not really. It's more like consciousness is sacred, rather than life is sacred.
And all definitions of consciousness necessarily omit plants from the club?
Uh, yes? Do plants feel plain, or desire, or empathy? Do they have brains? They're like... Biological computers. Sure, they do things, but so do computers. They don't have free will.
Some plants have awareness of their surroundings. Surely that accounts for something.
Reaction to the surroundings is not the same thing as awareness.
Maybe not, but we can't know for certain, can we? Surely it's better to be on the safe side and avoid consuming those plants.
Not really. It's more like consciousness is sacred, rather than life is sacred.
And all definitions of consciousness necessarily omit plants from the club?
Uh, yes? Do plants feel plain, or desire, or empathy? Do they have brains? They're like... Biological computers. Sure, they do things, but so do computers. They don't have free will.
Do animals have free will? Or are they just bundles of environmental response protocols?
Why do we have an ethical responsibility to preserve higher life forms?
Meat production generally have shitty "stock" treatment and is an incredibly wasteful use of resources. Shoot your own game out in the wilds or eat produce.
So shooting animals out in the wild is okay? That's pretty interesting. I'd argue that shooting an animal also causes it tremendous amounts of pain. Surely you can avoid it because you are able to survive on produce.
I dunno about you, but if I had to pick then I'd rather be gunned down from 400 yards while going about my business than raised in deplorable conditions, overdosed on antibiotics, kept in the dark in my own filth, and killed at an age 1/10 of my normal life expectancy.
Would you choose not existing over either?
Because that's what 90% of the livestock we currrently have are looking at if farming had never taken off.
Are you actually trying to compare the ethical treatment of living animals with the desire of non-existent animals to exist?
No, I'm saying that there are ethical considerations at stake outside the very basic "their life sucks and that's wrong" that's being presented on the veg side of the argument here.
At what level of lifetime suffering does non-existence become the better option?
Not really. It's more like consciousness is sacred, rather than life is sacred.
And all definitions of consciousness necessarily omit plants from the club?
Uh, yes? Do plants feel plain, or desire, or empathy? Do they have brains? They're like... Biological computers. Sure, they do things, but so do computers. They don't have free will.
Do animals have free will? Or are they just bundles of environmental response protocols?
Clearly not enough to place them above the magical threshold of "should interfere in their matters," but high enough that we should treat them like humans by giving them certain rights.
The contradiction is one of staggering proportions.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
I almost hate to open this can of worms, but here goes.
"Free will" is a fallacious construct that humans use to describe the unpredictable behavior of our peers. It isn't useful as a guide to what is ok to kill and eat or not, because it doesn't really describe anything other than "smart enough that I can't immediately discern its intent"
I almost hate to open this can of worms, but here goes.
"Free will" is a fallacious construct that humans use to describe the unpredictable behavior of our peers. It isn't useful as a guide to what is ok to kill and eat or not, because it doesn't really describe anything other than "smart enough that I can't immediately discern its intent"
I agree 100%.
The concept of "Free Will" is just a construct that exists to make humans and things with human-like attributes seem special.
Which is not to say that it's a completely useless concept, just that it only exists on a theoretical level and we need to recognize that.
I almost hate to open this can of worms, but here goes.
"Free will" is a fallacious construct that humans use to describe the unpredictable behavior of our peers. It isn't useful as a guide to what is ok to kill and eat or not, because it doesn't really describe anything other than "smart enough that I can't immediately discern its intent"
Fair enough, but if free will isn't a useful guide to what is okay to kill and eat or not, then what is?
If "ability to feel pain" is, then fine, but why? Pain is just a neurological response to damage done to the organism.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Why do we have an ethical responsibility to preserve higher life forms?
Meat production generally have shitty "stock" treatment and is an incredibly wasteful use of resources. Shoot your own game out in the wilds or eat produce.
So shooting animals out in the wild is okay? That's pretty interesting. I'd argue that shooting an animal also causes it tremendous amounts of pain. Surely you can avoid it because you are able to survive on produce.
I dunno about you, but if I had to pick then I'd rather be gunned down from 400 yards while going about my business than raised in deplorable conditions, overdosed on antibiotics, kept in the dark in my own filth, and killed at an age 1/10 of my normal life expectancy.
Would you choose not existing over either?
Because that's what 90% of the livestock we currrently have are looking at if farming had never taken off.
Are you actually trying to compare the ethical treatment of living animals with the desire of non-existent animals to exist?
No, I'm saying that there are ethical considerations at stake outside the very basic "their life sucks and that's wrong" that's being presented on the veg side of the argument here.
At what level of lifetime suffering does non-existence become the better option?
It's irrelevant. At this point we're responsible for a gargantuan population of captive cattle, pigs, etc and the best thing for all parties* would be to severely draw down their production to achieve a population decrease. This should coincide with reforms in the meat production industry to improve living conditions, reduce the use of antibiotics, ensure that the environmental impact of these facilities is more stringently regulated to reduce the incidence of e. coli outbreaks (remember the spinach outbreak a few years back? traced back to the beef factory up the hill from the veggie farm).
Choosing whether to bring an animal into the world or not matters only insofar as to the quality of life of the animal and other real-world impacts. An organism that doesn't exist can not want to exist, nor can existence be said to be preferable to non-existence except as it pertains to the rights of the already-existing.
*edit: all parties except the industries that profit from and rely on unsustainably cheap meat
TL DR on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I almost hate to open this can of worms, but here goes.
"Free will" is a fallacious construct that humans use to describe the unpredictable behavior of our peers. It isn't useful as a guide to what is ok to kill and eat or not, because it doesn't really describe anything other than "smart enough that I can't immediately discern its intent"
Fair enough, but if free will isn't a useful guide to what is okay to kill and eat or not, then what is?
If "ability to feel pain" is, then fine, but why? Pain is just a neurological response to damage done to the organism.
If I'm inflicting pain on you, then you'd likely not be comforted by the notion that you're just experiencing an electrochemical reaction to stimuli. I think we'd all agree that if you are presented with a situation that allows you to either cause pain or not cause pain, regardless of the intelligence of the organism experiencing it, then we should always opt to avoid pain.
I choose not to eat meat because I don't need to cause pain and death of animals in order to live a healthy and happy existence. Some people choose to eat meat, and I am willing to say that this is morally permissible if done right. What is not morally permissible is the way that we currently produce meat.
I have a lot more understanding and appreciation of a person that hunts a deer for food than one who fries up some Wal-Mart ribs and just avoids thinking about the origins.
Timothy is Right. Ultimately, free will doesn't exist. There is no arguing with it. Our brains are made up of cells, which individually react in predictable ways. In large groups, they react in ways we can't predict, but theoretically could if we had a few supercomputers and a much better understanding of the mind.
My model is based off a few premses like, "Life is good," and "Seek to preserve higher life forms when interacting with them,". I believe this results in society that promotes life.
Your model is based off "Natural is moral." I think this results in a worse society than mine. Therefore, I oppose it.
Also, don't act like mine is a huge contradiction and yours isn't.
It's irrelevant. At this point we're responsible for a gargantuan population of captive cattle, pigs, etc and the best thing for all parties would be to severely draw down their production to achieve a population decrease. This should coincide with reforms in the meat production industry to improve living conditions, reduce the use of antibiotics, ensure that the environmental impact of these facilities is more stringently regulated to reduce the incidence of e. coli outbreaks (remember the spinach outbreak a few years back? traced back to the beef factory up the hill from the veggie farm).
We're also responsible for a gargantuan population of captive wheat crops, fruit and vegetable trees and bushes, and a whole bunch of other plants that I am neglecting to mention. Surely those plants are better off existing freely in nature, without facing death by harvester blade?
On the animal side of the argument, if you have problems with holding captive animals, then how come you have no problems with agriculture practices that destroy grasslands and forests? Surely we should severely limit those as well, and replant the forests we have cut down and restore the grasslands we have destroyed so that the animals that lived in them once can do so again? I mean, they no doubt suffered tremendously when we invaded their habitats.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Protein, when faced with eating an animal, versus eating a plant, eating a plant is the ethical option because the higher life form (animal) is preserved. If it was eating an animal versus starvation, eating an animal is the ethical option because the higher life form (human) is preserved.
That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Exactly what do you base the concept of "higher life form" on?
Timothy is Right. Ultimately, free will doesn't exist. There is no arguing with it. Our brains are made up of cells, which individually react in predictable ways. In large groups, they react in ways we can't predict, but theoretically could if we had a few supercomputers and a much better understanding of the mind.
My model is based off a few premses like, "Life is good," and "Seek to preserve higher life forms when interacting with them,". I believe this results in society that promotes life.
Your model is based off "Natural is moral." I think this results in a worse society than mine. Therefore, I oppose it.
Also, don't act like mine is a huge contradiction and yours isn't.
But you still have not explained why it is morally superior to protect higher life forms, even if we subscribe to your definition of what constitutes a higher life form.
since we are just opening cans of worms all over the place, here is one I have been musing on
mainly, and i'm not saying all ethical vegetarians/vegans feel like this, but the ones that essentially equate human and animal life: is it feasible for them to exist in this society? I feel like if I thought that the equivalent of people were being raised and slaughtered at the current magnitude they are, I would go out of my mind.
I'm not saying that the only behavior consistent with that believe would be revolution or terrorism, but at the very least some sort of wide scale Thoreau measure would be in order.
We're also responsible for a gargantuan population of captive wheat crops, fruit and vegetable trees and bushes, and a whole bunch of other plants that I am neglecting to mention. Surely those plants are better off existing freely in nature, without facing death by harvester blade?
What on earth does this have to do with vegetarianism and veganism; plants don't suffer (unless you are arguing that they can suffer?)
On the animal side of the argument, if you have problems with holding captive animals, then how come you have no problems with agriculture practices that destroy grasslands and forests?
Non-sequitor.
And I'd imagine the person to whom you are responding does have a problem with ecosystem destruction.
_________
I eat meat. I try to avoid factory-farm raised meat. I have no problem admitting that vegans and vegetarians are morally superior to me, at least with respect to causing suffering to animals. They are.
I don't condone militant anything, and PETA's tactics are often stupid. But that has nothing to do with the debate on the ethics of vegetarianism/veganism. Frankly, it seems like the reason so many people make the arguments you're making, Protein Shakes, is because you feel defensive.
since we are just opening cans of worms all over the place, here is one I have been musing on
mainly, and i'm not saying all ethical vegetarians/vegans feel like this, but the ones that essentially equate human and animal life: is it feasible for them to exist in this society? I feel like if I thought that the equivalent of people were being raised and slaughtered at the current magnitude they are, I would go out of my mind.
I'm not saying that the only behavior consistent with that believe would be revolution or terrorism, but at the very least some sort of wide scale Thoreau measure would be in order.
I honestly believe that our descendants are going to look at factory farming as one of the greatest atrocities in history, up there with slavery and the Holocaust.
There, I said it.
And no, pigs, chickens, etc. are not morally equivalent to human beings.
since we are just opening cans of worms all over the place, here is one I have been musing on
mainly, and i'm not saying all ethical vegetarians/vegans feel like this, but the ones that essentially equate human and animal life: is it feasible for them to exist in this society? I feel like if I thought that the equivalent of people were being raised and slaughtered at the current magnitude they are, I would go out of my mind.
I'm not saying that the only behavior consistent with that believe would be revolution or terrorism, but at the very least some sort of wide scale Thoreau measure would be in order.
I honestly believe that our descendants are going to look at factory farming as one of the greatest atrocities in history, up there with slavery and the Holocaust.
There, I said it.
And no, pigs, chickens, etc. are not morally equivalent to a human being.
The magnitude is much greater though. The amount of needless pain is amazing.
Couscous on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
It's irrelevant. At this point we're responsible for a gargantuan population of captive cattle, pigs, etc and the best thing for all parties would be to severely draw down their production to achieve a population decrease. This should coincide with reforms in the meat production industry to improve living conditions, reduce the use of antibiotics, ensure that the environmental impact of these facilities is more stringently regulated to reduce the incidence of e. coli outbreaks (remember the spinach outbreak a few years back? traced back to the beef factory up the hill from the veggie farm).
We're also responsible for a gargantuan population of captive wheat crops, fruit and vegetable trees and bushes, and a whole bunch of other plants that I am neglecting to mention. Surely those plants are better off existing freely in nature, without facing death by harvester blade?
On the animal side of the argument, if you have problems with holding captive animals, then how come you have no problems with agriculture practices that destroy grasslands and forests? Surely we should severely limit those as well, and replant the forests we have cut down and restore the grasslands we have destroyed so that the animals that lived in them once can do so again? I mean, they no doubt suffered tremendously when we invaded their habitats.
We can experience pain. Having a similar neurological system, a cow can probably be said to experience pain in a similar way. It expresses discomfort and attempts to avoid the painful stimulus. Watching an animal in pain can cause us to become uncomfortable because we empathize with the sensation and the desire for relief.
A plant, jellyfish, mollusk, or other animal without a central nervous system can not be assumed to experience pain in a recognizable way. If you were pricking them with a pin, most of these organisms would not exhibit discomfort or attempt to escape.
We're also responsible for a gargantuan population of captive wheat crops, fruit and vegetable trees and bushes, and a whole bunch of other plants that I am neglecting to mention. Surely those plants are better off existing freely in nature, without facing death by harvester blade?
What on earth does this have to do with vegetarianism and veganism; plants don't suffer (unless you are arguing that they can suffer?)
What does that mean, plants don't suffer? All living organisms suffer when you damage them. The only thing plants can't do is feel pain (at least that is what we think currently. We don't know for sure).
On the animal side of the argument, if you have problems with holding captive animals, then how come you have no problems with agriculture practices that destroy grasslands and forests?
Non-sequitor.
And I'd imagine the person to whom you are responding does have a problem with ecosystem destruction.
It's not a non-equitor at all. If those individuals have a problem with ecosystem destruction then they should not buy produce that is grown in farms that have been built by destroying the ecosystem.
That is the only way their stance will have any integrity.
I don't condone militant anything, and PETA's tactics are often stupid. But that has nothing to do with the debate on the ethics of vegetarianism/veganism. Frankly, it seems like the reason so many people make the arguments you're making, Protein Shakes, is because you feel defensive.
That is true, I feel a little defensive because I don't know if I will be attacked by a vegan nutjob next time I buy meat at the supermarket.
We're also responsible for a gargantuan population of captive wheat crops, fruit and vegetable trees and bushes, and a whole bunch of other plants that I am neglecting to mention. Surely those plants are better off existing freely in nature, without facing death by harvester blade?
What on earth does this have to do with vegetarianism and veganism; plants don't suffer (unless you are arguing that they can suffer?)
What does that mean, plants don't suffer? All living organisms suffer when you damage them. The only thing plants can't do is feel pain (at least that is what we think currently. We don't know for sure).
What are you using the word 'suffer' to mean, then? Because I really don't think you can compare tazing a person and mowing your grass in any meaningful way.
On the animal side of the argument, if you have problems with holding captive animals, then how come you have no problems with agriculture practices that destroy grasslands and forests?
Non-sequitor.
And I'd imagine the person to whom you are responding does have a problem with ecosystem destruction.
It's not a non-equitor at all. If those individuals have a problem with ecosystem destruction then they should not buy produce that is grown in farms that have been built by destroying the ecosystem.
That is the only way their stance will have any integrity.
I don't condone militant anything, and PETA's tactics are often stupid. But that has nothing to do with the debate on the ethics of vegetarianism/veganism. Frankly, it seems like the reason so many people make the arguments you're making, Protein Shakes, is because you feel defensive.
That is true, I feel a little defensive because I don't know if I will be attacked by a vegan nutjob next time I buy meat at the supermarket.
Attacks on omnivores by 'vegan nutjobs' are far less common than the incidences of food poisoning and other damage felt by people due to the practice of factory farming.
It's irrelevant. At this point we're responsible for a gargantuan population of captive cattle, pigs, etc and the best thing for all parties would be to severely draw down their production to achieve a population decrease. This should coincide with reforms in the meat production industry to improve living conditions, reduce the use of antibiotics, ensure that the environmental impact of these facilities is more stringently regulated to reduce the incidence of e. coli outbreaks (remember the spinach outbreak a few years back? traced back to the beef factory up the hill from the veggie farm).
We're also responsible for a gargantuan population of captive wheat crops, fruit and vegetable trees and bushes, and a whole bunch of other plants that I am neglecting to mention. Surely those plants are better off existing freely in nature, without facing death by harvester blade?
On the animal side of the argument, if you have problems with holding captive animals, then how come you have no problems with agriculture practices that destroy grasslands and forests? Surely we should severely limit those as well, and replant the forests we have cut down and restore the grasslands we have destroyed so that the animals that lived in them once can do so again? I mean, they no doubt suffered tremendously when we invaded their habitats.
We can experience pain. Having a similar neurological system, a cow can probably be said to experience pain in a similar way. It expresses discomfort and attempts to avoid the painful stimulus. Watching an animal in pain can cause us to become uncomfortable because we empathize with the sensation and the desire for relief.
A plant, jellyfish, mollusk, or other animal without a central nervous system can not be assumed to experience pain in a recognizable way. If you were pricking them with a pin, most of these organisms would not exhibit discomfort or attempt to escape.
I think this is a morally relevant distinction.
Just because they do not experience pain in a recognizable way does not mean they do not experience pain, period. Furthermore, I object to the claim that the ability to experience pain should be the basis of any moral argument.
Trees definitely exhibit discomfort when you hit them with an axe. This discomfort is exhibited by the excretion of certain materials from the bark to cover the wounded area, so that it can be repaired before insects find it and then eat towards the inside of the plant through it. How would you feel knowing that there is an insect inside you eating your organs? Even if you were in a paralyzed state and thereofre could not feel any pain, you would still be horrified.
Considering this, I'd say hitting trees with an axe is pretty cruel.
Just because they do not experience pain in a recognizable way does not mean they do not experience pain, period. Furthermore, I object to the claim that the ability to experience pain should be the basis of any moral argument.
How can a being without a brain feel pain?
Trees definitely exhibit discomfort when you hit them with an axe. This discomfort is exhibited by the excretion of certain materials from the bark to cover the wounded area, so that it can be repaired before insects find it and then eat towards the inside of the plant through it. How would you feel knowing that there is an insect inside you eating your organs? Even if you were in a paralyzed state and thereofre could not feel any pain, you would still be horrified.
As far as ethical objections are concerned, I am curious as to where the line is drawn. Do vegans and to a lesser extent vegetarians avoid things that contain say, carmine/cochineal dye?
Posts
I dunno about you, but if I had to pick then I'd rather be gunned down from 400 yards while going about my business than raised in deplorable conditions, overdosed on antibiotics, kept in the dark in my own filth, and killed at an age 1/10 of my normal life expectancy.
"PETA fanatics are dicks" is a perfectly good argument against irrational thought and I halfheartedly support treating them as such. I recall in middle school we were leaving campus and there were PETA protesters there being ass hats because they served us milk and chicken nuggets.
They were showing middle school children a severed udder and head of a cow that had begun to rot, passing out these horrible stickers of cute little baby chicks with the "I am not a nugget" written on them.
Chicken nuggets and chocolate milk may not be the healthiest food in the world, but it's cheap as hell and provided us with an affordable and filling lunch that kept us us with our minimal nutritional value, which was much needed because many of us were on lunch programs and didn't get any other nutritional food since all our families could afford at home was a bucket of KFC for the family every night. Another issue for another topic maybe.
I, being the average smart ass 8th grader who though he was tough shit, chucked a carton of milk at one of them and sprayed them with the fortified goodness of watery cafeteria milk. I felt pissed off, I also felt like I had a good reason to be but in reflection it was not much better than what they were doing. It was still funny as hell and totally worth the detention.
Because that's what 90% of the livestock we currrently have are looking at if farming had never taken off.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Err, this would only be true if we do in fact agree that eating animals is immoral.
And, guess what: you can eat animals and still care about minimizing their suffering to a reasonable level.
I think that once a life form is above a certain threshold, we should seek to preserve it's life. Obviously we should separate the mentally handicapped fighting, because no retards dying is superior to 1 retard dying.
Below the threshold of human life, we should seek to preserve the higher life form in our own dealings with it, because we are humans that have a sense of right and wrong. While we should seek to preserve lower life forms in a grand scale, Lower life forms business among themselves is no concern of ours. The ultimate goal of this model is for a just human society, not a just natural world.
Well, obviously we shoot it because we have the ability to. I'm describing an ethical model where shooting it is the ethical thing to do. The model is based off the premise that life is good, and It's made to create a society where human lives are most important, but some consideration is given to lower life forms, and the reason I'm describing it is because there are situations where we have to choose between life forms.
Random Person: "Want some HAMBURGER?!?!"
PotatoNinja: "No thanks I don't eat meat."
Random Person: "What the fuck is wrong with eating meat?"
Psycho vegetarians who can't even be in the same room as someone who eats meat? Assholes. Obnoxious omnivores trying to project their dietary insecurity onto vegetarians who just want to eat in fucking peace? Assholes.
In fact I think generally speaking the latter category is more annoying, as they're more common and the former category tends to at least know they're being gigantic toolbags.
I don't think we should, but that's another thread I guess. What if the stoner was provoking the bear intentionally, like poking it with a stick while wearing a beef jerky jacket? Is there no situation a human should exercise restraint and an animal won't where you feel the animal shouldn't be "punished"?
Uh, yes? Do plants feel plain, or desire, or empathy? Do they have brains? They're like... Biological computers. Sure, they do things, but so do computers. They don't have free will.
If the ultimate goal is for a just human society, how does killing animals for eating makes human society unjust?
Also, might I remind you that arbitrarily placing a threshold and applying two different standards to the life forms according to their placement in relation to it is making your moral stance severely lack any integrity?
Some plants have awareness of their surroundings. Surely that accounts for something.
Reaction to the surroundings is not the same thing as awareness.
I find the intersection of humanistic thought and naturalism to be very interesting, for exactly these reasons.
Are we right to remove threats? Is the bear doing something wrong by acting instinctually? Are we entitled to expect it to act in a manner outside its nature just because humans are involved? These are all very relevant questions that don't have pat answers.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Are you actually trying to compare the ethical treatment of living animals with the desire of non-existent animals to exist?
Maybe not, but we can't know for certain, can we? Surely it's better to be on the safe side and avoid consuming those plants.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
At what level of lifetime suffering does non-existence become the better option?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Clearly not enough to place them above the magical threshold of "should interfere in their matters," but high enough that we should treat them like humans by giving them certain rights.
The contradiction is one of staggering proportions.
"Free will" is a fallacious construct that humans use to describe the unpredictable behavior of our peers. It isn't useful as a guide to what is ok to kill and eat or not, because it doesn't really describe anything other than "smart enough that I can't immediately discern its intent"
The concept of "Free Will" is just a construct that exists to make humans and things with human-like attributes seem special.
Which is not to say that it's a completely useless concept, just that it only exists on a theoretical level and we need to recognize that.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Fair enough, but if free will isn't a useful guide to what is okay to kill and eat or not, then what is?
If "ability to feel pain" is, then fine, but why? Pain is just a neurological response to damage done to the organism.
It's irrelevant. At this point we're responsible for a gargantuan population of captive cattle, pigs, etc and the best thing for all parties* would be to severely draw down their production to achieve a population decrease. This should coincide with reforms in the meat production industry to improve living conditions, reduce the use of antibiotics, ensure that the environmental impact of these facilities is more stringently regulated to reduce the incidence of e. coli outbreaks (remember the spinach outbreak a few years back? traced back to the beef factory up the hill from the veggie farm).
Choosing whether to bring an animal into the world or not matters only insofar as to the quality of life of the animal and other real-world impacts. An organism that doesn't exist can not want to exist, nor can existence be said to be preferable to non-existence except as it pertains to the rights of the already-existing.
*edit: all parties except the industries that profit from and rely on unsustainably cheap meat
If I'm inflicting pain on you, then you'd likely not be comforted by the notion that you're just experiencing an electrochemical reaction to stimuli. I think we'd all agree that if you are presented with a situation that allows you to either cause pain or not cause pain, regardless of the intelligence of the organism experiencing it, then we should always opt to avoid pain.
I choose not to eat meat because I don't need to cause pain and death of animals in order to live a healthy and happy existence. Some people choose to eat meat, and I am willing to say that this is morally permissible if done right. What is not morally permissible is the way that we currently produce meat.
I have a lot more understanding and appreciation of a person that hunts a deer for food than one who fries up some Wal-Mart ribs and just avoids thinking about the origins.
My model is based off a few premses like, "Life is good," and "Seek to preserve higher life forms when interacting with them,". I believe this results in society that promotes life.
Your model is based off "Natural is moral." I think this results in a worse society than mine. Therefore, I oppose it.
Also, don't act like mine is a huge contradiction and yours isn't.
We're also responsible for a gargantuan population of captive wheat crops, fruit and vegetable trees and bushes, and a whole bunch of other plants that I am neglecting to mention. Surely those plants are better off existing freely in nature, without facing death by harvester blade?
On the animal side of the argument, if you have problems with holding captive animals, then how come you have no problems with agriculture practices that destroy grasslands and forests? Surely we should severely limit those as well, and replant the forests we have cut down and restore the grasslands we have destroyed so that the animals that lived in them once can do so again? I mean, they no doubt suffered tremendously when we invaded their habitats.
Exactly what do you base the concept of "higher life form" on?
But you still have not explained why it is morally superior to protect higher life forms, even if we subscribe to your definition of what constitutes a higher life form.
mainly, and i'm not saying all ethical vegetarians/vegans feel like this, but the ones that essentially equate human and animal life: is it feasible for them to exist in this society? I feel like if I thought that the equivalent of people were being raised and slaughtered at the current magnitude they are, I would go out of my mind.
I'm not saying that the only behavior consistent with that believe would be revolution or terrorism, but at the very least some sort of wide scale Thoreau measure would be in order.
On the black screen
Hey, worms are animals, so by opening the can you are freeing them from captivity. So that's a good thing!
Non-sequitor.
And I'd imagine the person to whom you are responding does have a problem with ecosystem destruction.
_________
I eat meat. I try to avoid factory-farm raised meat. I have no problem admitting that vegans and vegetarians are morally superior to me, at least with respect to causing suffering to animals. They are.
I don't condone militant anything, and PETA's tactics are often stupid. But that has nothing to do with the debate on the ethics of vegetarianism/veganism. Frankly, it seems like the reason so many people make the arguments you're making, Protein Shakes, is because you feel defensive.
There, I said it.
And no, pigs, chickens, etc. are not morally equivalent to human beings.
The magnitude is much greater though. The amount of needless pain is amazing.
We can experience pain. Having a similar neurological system, a cow can probably be said to experience pain in a similar way. It expresses discomfort and attempts to avoid the painful stimulus. Watching an animal in pain can cause us to become uncomfortable because we empathize with the sensation and the desire for relief.
A plant, jellyfish, mollusk, or other animal without a central nervous system can not be assumed to experience pain in a recognizable way. If you were pricking them with a pin, most of these organisms would not exhibit discomfort or attempt to escape.
I think this is a morally relevant distinction.
What does that mean, plants don't suffer? All living organisms suffer when you damage them. The only thing plants can't do is feel pain (at least that is what we think currently. We don't know for sure).
It's not a non-equitor at all. If those individuals have a problem with ecosystem destruction then they should not buy produce that is grown in farms that have been built by destroying the ecosystem.
That is the only way their stance will have any integrity.
That is true, I feel a little defensive because I don't know if I will be attacked by a vegan nutjob next time I buy meat at the supermarket.
What are you using the word 'suffer' to mean, then? Because I really don't think you can compare tazing a person and mowing your grass in any meaningful way.
Attacks on omnivores by 'vegan nutjobs' are far less common than the incidences of food poisoning and other damage felt by people due to the practice of factory farming.
Just because they do not experience pain in a recognizable way does not mean they do not experience pain, period. Furthermore, I object to the claim that the ability to experience pain should be the basis of any moral argument.
Trees definitely exhibit discomfort when you hit them with an axe. This discomfort is exhibited by the excretion of certain materials from the bark to cover the wounded area, so that it can be repaired before insects find it and then eat towards the inside of the plant through it. How would you feel knowing that there is an insect inside you eating your organs? Even if you were in a paralyzed state and thereofre could not feel any pain, you would still be horrified.
Considering this, I'd say hitting trees with an axe is pretty cruel.
You are arguing pseudoscientific hogwash.