Animal rights, split from dictator thread

[BenSon]

I figure those animals would eat me if they had the chance so why not eat them?

 

~Scott

[In My Memory]

BenSon,

 

I figure those animals would eat me if they had the chance so why not eat them?

All those carnivorous cows, chickens, and pigs will come after you in your dreams, you know

[BenSon]

Hey I'm sure if you ground me up into their food they'd be more then happy chow down.

 

~Scott

[zyncod]

He's being smug and pompous.

 

Hypocritical I am about many things, but smug and pompous I hope that I am not. Having said that, I probably could not have worded that last post less tactfully.

 

Saying that objecting to human farming while allowing animal research to proceed is, by your own admission IMM, an ideologically consistent viewpoint as it takes into consideration the sentience and lifestyle diversity of the research subject. That's really the only point that I wanted to make. So you can stop reading now and I hope that we've resolved this fairly amicably.

 

But I'm going to continue unbidden. This is not a "stump the vegan" point that I'm trying to make here. I find it admirable that you've committed yourself to reducing animal suffering, and I support it until the point at which you call for a blanket abolition of animal research. For your ability to live in civilization, even in the circumstances most committed to reducing suffering, at least 6000 mammals will die throughout your life. Knowing this and continuing to live in civilization is an implicit endorsement of these deaths - they are no longer unintentional. Given that a 6000:1 ratio is, apparently, acceptable, calling all animal research "wrong" because it results in the death of sentient animals is not ideologically consistent. You can, however, impugn the morality of the researchers based on the premise that being caged in "shoeboxes" or subjected to the stresses of some types of experimentation vastly decreases the quality of life for these animals.

 

Additionally, campaigning to end animal research now seems incredibly silly. It's equivalent to saying in the 1850s that, not only should we end slavery, but we should have a black President. Now, slavery is wrong, and should be ended, but given that so many black people are suffering in slavery, it seems a pointless, token gesture to be campaigning for a black President then. Similarly, eating meat is wrong because there is literally no benefit to humanity, and factory farming should be ended. Ending animal research at this point would, however, be a pointless gesture since these animals are for the most part treated as humanely as possible, since these animals are for the most part fairly low on the sentience scale, since these animals form such a vanishingly small percentage of total exploited animals, and since there are tangible benefits to humanity as a result of their deaths. The fact that so many AR activists make ending animal research such a cornerstone of their philosophy leads me to one of two possibilities: 1. There's a kind of post-eugenics resistance to the thought of "experimentation" on sentient beings of any kind. 2. AR activists also make being a morally superior pain in the ass a cornerstone of their beliefs.

 

And you're right. I don't really care about reducing animal suffering all that much. Still and all, I'm probably one of your greatest allies in the field that I work in - my experiments still turn my stomach sometimes, I really try as hard as I can to treat my mice humanely, and I do find the mice incredibly cute at times (if you pet them for a while, they'll kind of 'purr'). I'm a vegetarian for the primary reason of environmentalism - the corollary being that the pointless suffering meat animals endure should be ended. I don't think we should experiment at all on primates, cats, dogs, and pigs we should try not to, and all other animals are pretty much acceptable as long as suffering is kept to a minimum. This is all based upon "gut" morality, and is not ideologically or logically consistent (you don't want me to get into my logical system of morality). The difference is that I'm not trying to convert anybody.

[Mokele]

Actually I'd say this is probably true for 99% of the people on the planet on every political topic.

 

Which offers a simple moral solution to the whole problem...

 

::offers some square green wafers:: Soylent Green anyone?

 

I think there is good reason to believe that my ideological opponents are uninformed,

 

I think there needs to be one additional word in there: "majority". Yes, the majority of most people are uninformed about most things. Yay for the US public education system.

 

The thing is your phrasing. If you say "the majority of my opponents don't hold informed views", that makes me think "Oh, perhaps I'm one of the exceptions, so I should try to make this clear by having a rational discussion and showing off how informed and ratioanl I am on the topic". In contrast, if you say "my opponents don't hold informed views", that sounds like you mean *all* of us, and that tends to get people defensive.

 

I just wanted to point that out, FYI. I know that you don't mean to generalize, but in the heat of a debate about something you care passionately about, it happens; I do it too, and probably in a lot harsher of a manner.

 

and that my veganism isnt "faith" like Pangloss seems to think it is.

 

What I think Pangloss is getting at (and please correct me if I'm wrong, Pan), is that your veganism, like every system of philosophy or belief, is based on a set of assumptions. Not everyone shares these assumptions, so, in a way, it could be considered analagous to faith. For isntance, say I take the position that only what I see actually exists. We'd argue ourselves in circles forever, because the conflict boils down to who accept what assumptions.

 

And that brings up the issue of forcing one's assumption on others, given that the original context of this thread was the "what would you do as a dictator?" thread.

 

All those carnivorous cows, chickens, and pigs will come after you in your dreams, you know

 

Pity we're about 50 million years too late for that; mesonychids, phorousrachids, and entelodonts would have been fun.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

What I think Pangloss is getting at (and please correct me if I'm wrong, Pan), is that your veganism, like every system of philosophy or belief, is based on a set of assumptions. Not everyone shares these assumptions, so, in a way, it could be considered analagous to faith. For isntance, say I take the position that only what I see actually exists. We'd argue ourselves in circles forever, because the conflict boils down to who accept what assumptions.

 

Exactly. It's not a perfect analogy that I made, but I think it demonstrates an important point. Here's another imperfect analogy:

 

This is not generally well considered today, and it is certainly not politically correct to discuss it, but 200 years ago black people were often looked at as racially inferior, not just by bigots, but by thoughtful, scientific, well-meaning people -- even those who opposed slavery. The vast majority of Americans and Europeans, the very forefront of western scientific achievement, assumed that they were incapable of higher thinking, rational discourse, or scientific or engineering thought and achievement. This background assumption was a big part of why slavery persisted for so long. People wondered why so much time and effort was being "wasted" on people who simply weren't capable taking advantage of being free.

 

Some day we may look back on the period of animal experimentation in the same way that we look back on that horrific assumption. Given that, scientifically, intelligence has to come somewhere, and given evolutionary theory, it's logical to conclude that some animals are closer to sentience than others. But we make no distinctions in our experimentation or consumption practices. Will future societies forget that we were unable to scientifically determine key aspects of our own evolutionary development, and condemn us for eating animals, just as we often condemn our forefathers for hypocritically declaring that "all men are created equal"?

 

They might. But they'd be just as wrong to do so as we are wrong to condemn George Washington or Thomas Jefferson for thinking blacks were inferior. They simply had no reason to think otherwise, and we are in exactly the same boat. Today we know better about black people, and some day we will know what causes animals to become sentient. Determining *today*, with our *current* knowledge, that not eating animals is the correct moral action, is premature.

 

So like I said, if that's what you want to do, more power to you. But to me that would just feel like I was playing to the history books. I don't care what some future, flawed assessment of my actions will be. I only care that they are correct moral actions for what I know to be the truth today, because for all I know they'll discover tomorrow that sentience occurs IFF lightning strikes on the third Tuesday of a blue moon in a leap year. We simply cannot know what the future will hold.

 

(But I don't mean to suggest that *your* actions, IMM, are based on a flawed view of future historians. That's just my view on it.)

[AL]

Everyone else' date='

 

My apologies for becoming upset yesterday. I've mentioned in other posts that animal rights is my most sensitive issue, and I'm very prone to letting it affect me on a personal level.

 

I try to be reasonable, and I do a good job about 95% of the time.

Fair enough. We all lose our cool at some point. You're one of the few people that acknowledge it, and that is commendable.

 

AL,

 

 

Actually I'd say this is probably true for 99% of the people on the planet on every political topic. Pangloss, being a moderate Libertarian, should be particularly aware of just how poor and shallow political discourse is in America - everything people say and think can be articulated in 30-second soundbytes, summed up in the talking points of today, or written in some garden-variety pundits next best seller.

 

To prove this point, consider the best philosophy a few hundred years ago, "On Liberty", "On the Principals of Moral Obligations and Legislation", "The Leviathon", etc. All of these works were read by nearly all voting men, discussed intelligently. However, the works of today of comparable quality, such as Rawl's "A Theory of Justice" and Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" are read by a small number of academics and first year philosophy students, I have not seen any of these works referenced in mass media for the last 10 years. The most popular works nowadays are Ann Coulter's "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)", Micheal Savage's "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder", and Michael Moore's "Fat White Men" - I've read all of these books and considered if they are what the majority of Americans read for their "informed" political opinions, then reason is dead forever replaced with ideologues memorizing apologetics and rationalizations. (I might add that one more way to prove how people enjoy their fast-food apologetics is simply like this: how many people do you think will skip over this quite reasonable post because its a moderately lengthy read? Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I think it brings up a good rhetorical point: ideologues dont care what their opponents have to say.)

 

Having said that, I think I'm in a pretty good place accuse my ideological opponents of giving their opinions relatively little thought, and peoples opinions on animal rights is no exception. I partially blame PETA on lowering animal rights to the status of Micheal Moore by relying on outrageous spectacles to get their point across, but if animal rights has to keep up with current state of fast-food news and the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality, then the demonstrations are the only way to accomplish it - however, as long as my "ideological opponents" continue to attack animal rights in the same ways that PETA defends it, then they are rightfully called uninformed and have given their position no thought.

 

I've personally never been interested to read PETA's "Holocaust on Your Plate", I have more compelling things to base my deeply held convictions upon. I've preferred to read the legitimate academic (although not as emotional or flavorful to read) discussion on animal rights, relying heavily on Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation" and "In Defense of Animals" - it puts veganism and animal rights as a position based on philosophy, and reveals the lack of consideration for animal rights to be a mish-mash of contradictory values that is morally intolerable.

 

Hopefully, I've got across my point: I think there is good reason to believe that my ideological opponents are uninformed, and that my veganism isnt "faith" like Pangloss seems to think it is. Based on my experience, I genuinely believe that 99% of all of my ideological opponents, if they are unwilling to put away the credulity that I see everyday or even take a few hours out of their day to read "Animal Liberation", are simply uninformed - I'm sure I could probably try to talk about the principles of equal consideration of interests and the merits of preference utilitarianism, but I doubt my points will be recieved well by many people. (I'm to the point where I think as long as reasoned discourse is dead and people continue to base their meat eating on the fact that they like the taste of steroid-saturated meat, then maybe the best case I could ever make for veganism is to write a cookbook of my favorite recipes.)

I've given animal rights quite a bit of thought. As a postbac in biochemistry making a career switch to the health professions (M.D. or Pharm.D., haven't decided), I've already killed a number of lab animals. Of course, I do not take such affairs lightly, and I treat these animals with the utmost respect and humanity, and not simply because a life sciences ethical committee is watching my back either. These animals are so heavily anesthetized by the time they are euthanized, that I hesitate to even say they are in a "vegetative" state -- even a vegetable is capable of responding to external negative stimuli or environmental stresses.

 

My moral system is heirarchical (I could elaborate its structure further, but this post will get quite lengthy), and although I believe we have a moral responsibility to the animals, I believe that our responsibility to other humans trumps that. You can view this as an inconsistency, but I view it as a simple acknowledgement that we are restricted to finite resources. You cannot feed the hungry if you yourself are starving to death. We are the stewards of the planet, and we need to be in optimal shape ourselves so that we can extend further protection to the animals. Paradoxically, this will involve sacrificing some animals so that our knowledge of medicine will increase, but this is not just for our benefit -- this is for the long-term benefit of animals as well, since we will be acquiring further knowledge of veterinary science. If there was a way for medical knowledge to increase without this sacrifice, I'm in favor. If there were a way for a surgeon to develop manual dexterity without cutting up an animal, I'm all in favor. But until these methods are developed, I hold that it is still morally obligatory for us to minimize human suffering first, before that of the animals.

 

In any event, I'm always curious about other people's views. When I have the time, I'll pick up a copy of the animal ethics books you mentioned here. I'm always looking for a good read anyhow, and I'm not afraid to be proven wrong, though I doubt a few books'll change my career path.

[renee]

Animals are not our equals. We eat them, experiment on them... society has put them in a lower class than us. The question, "How would you feel if...?" Is irrelevant, because we will most likely not have to see through their eyes because animals do not have the mental capapbilities to overthrow us. When and if they do, they deserve to treat us like animals, so to speak. But we are not equal. We are the superior race- the predator. That is like saying a lion is equal to a gisele, or a frog to a fly... we are higher on the food chain, therefore, even in the animal's eyes, we are not equal.

 

Even though they should be treated with respect and the such because they are living things, it would be crazy talk to say that we are equal.

[-Demosthenes-]

No. We're an advanced, tool-using monkey, and that's it.

I realize that humans are animals, but seriously, we can talk (not just because we have a larynx), we can socialize in a way that no other animal has rivaled, we can philosophize, and so many other things. Humans can do things that other animals lack the ability to even to even comprehend. Human beings have created religion and government, produced Mozart and Newton. I think it can quite easily said that the Human is more than a species apart.

[Skye]

Given that, scientifically, intelligence has to come somewhere, and given evolutionary theory, it's logical to conclude that some animals are closer to sentience than others. But we make no distinctions in our experimentation or consumption practices.

I don't entirely agree. We generally treat mammals with more concern than we do fish or crustaceans for example.

[Tetrahedrite]

A quote pertinant to the discussion at hand:

 

"We have become, by the power of a glorious evolutionary accident called intelligence, the steward of life's continutity on earth. We did not ask for this role, but we cannot abjure it. We may not be suited to it, but here we are."

 

Stephen Jay Gould (1941 - 2002)

[Pangloss]

I don't entirely agree. We generally treat mammals with more concern than we do fish or crustaceans for example.

Do we? We still eat mammals and experiment on them. And we enjoy movies that personify fish and crustaceans.

[Pangloss]

A quote pertinant to the discussion at hand:

 

"We have become' date=' by the power of a glorious evolutionary accident called intelligence, the steward of life's continutity on earth. We did not ask for this role, but we cannot abjure it. We may not be suited to it, but here we are."

 

Stephen Jay Gould (1941 - 2002)[/quote']

 

 

David Brin is another good example of a scientist who believes we should be more responsible in our role as custodians of Earth. Some day we may be judged by the society of the universe that so clearly cannot be empty.

 

The compromise I'm suggesting is that we continue to do the things that are necessary and important for humanity to prosper, but be more responsible about the frivolous ways we do waste life on this planet. Animal experimentation for medical knowledge? Sure. Animal experimentation for cosmetics? That's another thing entirely.

 

Meanwhile we should continue to pay attention (as I believe we have done to great effect) to the way we use this planet. The 1st world should continue to lead the rest of the world towards a future in which life is preserved, the ecology is protected, and equality and freedom are achieved.

[imasmartgirl]

vegitarians are so thin and unhealthy! i eat my meat and grow strong

[Douglas]

I don't entirely agree. We generally treat mammals with more concern than we do fish or crustaceans for example.

Good point, I find it fairly difficult to drop a live lobster into a boiling pot, but I think it would be most disturbing to drop a live chicken into a boiling pot.

[In My Memory]

Zyncod,

 

I find it admirable that you've committed yourself to reducing animal suffering, and I support it until the point at which you call for a blanket abolition of animal research. For your ability to live in civilization, even in the circumstances most committed to reducing suffering, at least 6000 mammals will die throughout your life. Knowing this and continuing to live in civilization is an implicit endorsement of these deaths - they are no longer unintentional.

First, thank you for your admiration.

 

Second, what do you think an "implicit endorsement" is? I cant help but be reminded of Hume's analogy from his "Of the Original Contract":

Should it be said, that, by living under the dominion of a prince which one might leave, every individual has given a tacit consent to his authority, and promised him obedience; it may be answered, that such an implied consent can only have place where a man imagines that the matter depends on his choice. But where he thinks (as all mankind do who are born under established governments) that, by his birth, he owes allegiance to a certain prince or certain form of government; it would be absurd to infer a consent or choice, which he expressly, in this case, renounces and disclaims.

 

Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives, from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish, the moment he leaves her.

In other words, implicit endorsement (otherwise called tacit consent) cannot apply to anyone when there isnt a realistic alternative. In the second paragraph, Hume gives the example that if someone were on a ship then presumably they would tacitly consent to scrubbing the deck; but how could it be an implicit agreement to swab the decks and use the resources when the only alternative is to jump off the boat and swim for your life? Obviously, there isnt a viable option, so its not possible that anyone could, by the definition of a tacit agreement, could intentionally agree to such conditions.

 

Its a pedant point, but an important one. Unlike shopping at Walmart, where my realistic alternatives are to shop online or at half-dozen small shops I have nearby, it is not possible without conflating the meaning of an implicit endorsement that my realistic alternative to existing in society is to remove myself from society. An implicit agreement is based on a few things, which include that you know what you're doing, your intentions play a relevant part in your actions, you have realistic alternatives, and that you are knowledgeable of those alternatives, etc. (This is the same reason why a pro-lifer paying their taxes does not implicitly endorse stem-cell research or abortion despite their taxdollars paying for it, because their intentions play no part in the outcome of their actions and they dont have a real alternative.)

 

Even still, lets just say my existence probably causes the suffering of some humans and animals, but its by no means intentional. But if I tried to remove myself from society, it would cause suffering of some humans and animals as well, also unintentional (strictly speaking, if I never existed then its concievable that there would be more meat eaters; also from the point of view of the universe, I am a replaceable human being, and if I didnt exist I could be replaced by a meat eater; not to mention many people would be upset and my worldly contributions would be destroyed; thousands more reasons could be mentioned). As a poor analogy, think of that movie "Its a Wonderful Life".

 

Additionally, campaigning to end animal research now seems incredibly silly.

I'm wrong to criticize animal research because I'll be met with resistance?

 

 

Pangloss,

 

Will future societies forget that we were unable to scientifically determine key aspects of our own evolutionary development' date=' and condemn us for eating animals, just as we often condemn our forefathers for hypocritically declaring that "all men are created equal"?

 

They might. But they'd be just as wrong to do so as we are wrong to condemn George Washington or Thomas Jefferson for thinking blacks were inferior. They simply had no reason to think otherwise, and we are in exactly the same boat. Today we know better about black people, and some day we will know what causes animals to become sentient. Determining *today*, with our *current* knowledge, that not eating animals is the correct moral action, is premature.[/quote']

In other words, you arent necessarily saying that its impossible to resolve our moral differences, but really that we just cant make a reasonable decision.

 

I have basically two replies to your comment:

 

1) Unlike the people who oppose eating animals for metaphysical reasons (i.e. "your next chicken could be your great-grandmother"), but for very mundane reasons such as the fact that animals feel pain and that they have an interest in continued existence. These facts are non-controversial, and supported by all of our current knowledge, and reinforced by the fact that many people would see it as a horrible crime to stick a knife in the belly of a dog or try to perform operations on them without anesthetic.

 

If suffering and interests are morally relevant, then it isnt a question of whether we'll someday know that animals have interest and suffer (we know this already), but its instead a question of why we shouldnt consider those qualities in our moral judgements. From the book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer writes "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration (p. 57)".

 

(At the very least, the only thing close to an assumption that I'm making is that pain and suffering are actually morally relevant, but most people take that fact for granted without much disagreement.)

 

2) For someone who is a racist, it doesnt matter what the actual facts are black people, because if they believed that by the virtue of having white skin they are justified in giving little or no consideration to the interests of black people. Many racists believe that they are superior for being members of the white race and nothing more.

 

One of the hardest things I've ever had to do is actually sit and listen to racist talk, because their reasoning is exactly as follows "I do not owe anyone moral consideration if they do not belong to my group". The hard thing about this is explaining just exactly what the racist is doing wrong - why is it wrong for the racist to exclude non-members of his group from moral consideration. (If we entertain hypotheticals, we can define our group as anyone with an IQ above 110 and anyone below this level will be slaves, or we can define the group according to height in inches so that anyone above 5'8" rules over the shorter people.)

 

I'm sure you find that racism is vile, and that you would certainly feel short-shrifted if your belief that racism is vile or that failing to consider everyone equally is basically an assumption, a faith-based belief, and nothing more. Believe me, explaining whats wrong with the basis "I owe no moral consideration to non-members of my group" is extremely difficult (probably because many of us belief this fact to some extent in the form of irrational nationalism), but we all accept that racism is wrong. Also, you cannot refute the claim by referring to hypothetical "inherent natural rights" endowed to all humans, because such a claim differs from racists claim that his group is inherently superior in a single way - that what you call inherent rights is simply more inclusive based on your preferences (now you'd be hardpressed to argue against including animals as well if someone preferred to extend natural rights to that level).

 

The point is that black people possess the relevant traits that make them morally indistinguishable from white people, but racists dont care about that. Now, when you find the argument to refute the racists claim that he owes no consideration to non-members of his group, you'll find that the same reasoning refutes the claim that we do not owe consideration to non-members of the human species (despite the fact they can feel and have interests).

 

(For the record, the most coherent refutation of racism I've ever seen is based on the text by Peter Singer titled All Animals Are Equal which puts forth that a consistent ethics requires an equal consideration of interests regardless of race, sex, nationality, and species.)

 

The compromise I'm suggesting is that we continue to do the things that are necessary and important for humanity to prosper, but be more responsible about the frivolous ways we do waste life on this planet. Animal experimentation for medical knowledge?

Do you have any objections to setting aside a small portion of the population, perhaps the mentally retarded or particular race, for performing experiments on? (I'm certain that you do, but my comment is related to the above remarks on racism.)

 

 

Renee,

 

Animals are not our equals. We eat them' date=' experiment on them... society has put them in a lower class than us. The question, "How would you feel if...?" Is irrelevant, because we will most likely not have to see through their eyes because animals do not have the mental capapbilities to overthrow us. When and if they do, they deserve to treat us like animals, so to speak. But we are not equal. We are the superior race- the predator. That is like saying a lion is equal to a gisele, or a frog to a fly... we are higher on the food chain, therefore, even in the animal's eyes, we are not equal.

 

Even though they should be treated with respect and the such because they are living things, it would be crazy talk to say that we are equal.[/quote']

One of the rhetorical points that animal rights activists continually come back to is the comparison between animal liberation with women's and black's liberation. You're post is a textbook example where the comparison would be adequate, let me demonstrate with the following:

 

In the Do Women Belong in the Kitchen thread, a sexist posted the following in defense of treating women and men unequally:

Firstly, women and men are different. They are not equal. There are obvious underlying biological differences between the two sexes

The point the author was trying to make was that there were differences in the capacities between men and women, and so he tried to justify this superficial example of inequality as being the reason why we shouldnt treat men and women as equals. I responded to the sexists points with the following:

This is a superficial fact - that men and women are biologically different and have different general abilities' date=' and therefore not "equal" to one another in the physiological sense. If this is his reason for refuting women's equality, then it is wrong for four reasons:

 

1) When people talk about being "equal", they dont care about the physical differences. The word "equal" means equal treatment before the law, equality of opportunity, and equal consideration of interests. So, the author completely misses the point of equality.

 

2) The authors reasoning is a basic example of what is called the "naturalistic fallacy". Its a fallacy that has a very strong philosophical tradition from David Hume to G. E. Moore. In general terms, it means you cannot logically deduce an "ought to be" from an "is". You see him commit this particular deductive mistake over and over again in his essay when he states that women are statistically more likely to be homemakers and calls women in the office "unnatural".

 

3) The whole argument begs the question, because he says that women and men are unequal, but never explained how this physical inequality implies that women should be lesser than men and not the other way around. Why shouldnt the physical differences imply men's subordinance?

 

4) Every individual man is different physically and mentally from every other individual man, it is pretty much undeniable that there are definite differences between the physical body and abilities of men between other men. The author argues that all men should be treated equally, despite the physical and mental differences between them; but he argues that women and men should be treated unequally, because of the physical and mental differences between them. This is an irresolvable contradiction that undermines his entire essay.[/quote']

As a woman, Renee, you ought to be able to appreciate my criticism of the "biological differences" misconception. It doesnt need to be explained any further, but your comments about humans simply being able to dominate animals completely misses the point about animal equality in the same way that sexist author does: equality doesnt have to do with having the same abilities, but has to do with equal consideration of interests.

 

If you believe that domination justifies inequal consideration for interests, then you will upset every feminist theorist who has ever written about the corporate glass ceiling, and to the extremes you would have no justification for condemning every act of genocide from Holocaust to the racial extermination currently going on in Sudan and Rwanda.

 

 

imasmartgirl,

 

vegitarians are so thin and unhealthy! i eat my meat and grow strong

I'm 5'8" and weigh ~120 lbs, but despite my petite build I'm actually very healthy. The whole medical history of my family is very sad (i.e. cancer, thyroid disorders, heart problems, blod clots, aneurisyms, and obesity), but I'm the only healthy person in my family and I think this has to do with the fact that I eat very well and keep physically fit.

 

The key to being a healthy vegan or veggie is planning until you get a good routine developed. According to the American Dietetic Assocation:

Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. ... Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.

[Skye]

If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration

There's also everything else to take into consideration though. I don't feel the suffering most animals appear to go through in the course of their life to become my dinner is such that it makes me need to restrict them from my diet. Aniamsl will suffer to some extent whatever life they lead, so it is a matter of reasonable suffering rather than not causing suffering at all for me.

 

As that applies to humans, I don't think I'd like to eat people myself, but I don't have any problems with cannibalism in a general sense. I think the knowledge of being farmed to be eaten would make humans in most societies suffer too greatly though. But if say a society existed where consenting to cannibalism upon your death was normal, or an accepted judicial process, I don't have a problem with them doing so. Same with slavery, if it is part of an accepted judicial process, I don't think there is any greater suffering than that caused by incarceration or capital punishment, so I don't reject it outright.

[Pangloss]

Unlike the people who oppose eating animals for metaphysical reasons (i.e. "your next chicken could be your great-grandmother"), but for very mundane reasons such as the fact that animals feel pain and that they have an interest in continued existence. These facts are non-controversial, and supported by all of our current knowledge, and reinforced by the fact that many people would see it as a horrible crime to stick a knife in the belly of a dog or try to perform operations on them without anesthetic.

 

Yes, animals react to the mechanics of pain. So do plants. As you say, "these facts are non-controversial, and supported by all our current knowledge" -- you make my case for me.

 

But you've forgotten something. The crux of your argument, stated earlier, was that animals are sentient.

 

So you have a choice here: You can either explain to me why plants should not be protected while animals are, or you can prove the sentience of animals. If you can do neither, then your argument is based on faith.

 

 

In other words, you arent necessarily saying that its impossible to resolve our moral differences, but really that we just cant make a reasonable decision.

 

No, I'm saying that we can make a decision -- the one I proposed above. True centrism is not a moral equivalence argument. It is about seeking common, middle ground and finding the most tractable and least objectionable position that moves society forward towards a common goal. (Something you should understand, given your position on Roe v. Wade, hm?)

 

America was founded with slavery intact, but declaring that "all men were created equal". This hypocrisy is manifest, but our characterization of this as a "flaw" is colored by our modern perceptions of race, science, social context, and the simple fact that unity was not possible for the 13 colonies without slavery left intact. They didn't make a moral compromise. They made a moral sacrifice.

 

We can learn from their mistake by taking precautions against the possibility that sentience resides just beneath the surface in the minds of a few highly developed species, such as dolphins and chimpanzees. I'm agreeable to extending them protections. Eventually, as our understanding of sentience (not to mention our ability to produce entirely artificial food) improves, the situation may change, and we should then change as well.

 

But since you cannot tell me whether in fact sentience arises in such a manner, or in fact whether plants won't derive it either, you can not have your logical basis for animal rights. You can stand on a pulpit and preach as long as you want. Some will listen. More power to you, and I wish you luck in your quest, just as I also wish luck to those who teach the Golden Rule on Sundays.

[In My Memory]

Skye,

 

There's also everything else to take into consideration though. I don't feel the suffering most animals appear to go through in the course of their life to become my dinner is such that it makes me need to restrict them from my diet.

Oh my! Factory farms of the most miserable places on the planet, most people become vegetarians and vegans in the first place because the animals are treated so horribly. I think the amount an animal suffers being raised on a factory farm before becoming your meal at the dinner table is incomparable to the amount you will suffer for not being able to eat it.

 

(And if its just the taste of your food that matters so much, then visit me sometime in the US and I will cook for you very delicious, colorful food that will make you forget about eating animals.)

 

 

Pangloss,

 

But you've forgotten something. The crux of your argument, stated earlier, was that animals are sentient.

That isnt the crux of my argument, and you probably couldnt find a single post that I've written where sentience is of utmost importance to me.

 

I do think most animals are sentient in the sense of being able to percieve themselves over time, but that isnt central to the reasons why animals matter morally (because, after all, human infants are not sentient but obviously matter morally) - I've been consistent that the things that really matter are animal suffering and interests.

 

(Most of the time, I use the term "sentience" as a shorthand for the capacity to feel pain and pleasure. The term really doesnt matter to me beyond that point, so I do not feel its helpful to argue about it.)

 

You can either explain to me why plants should not be protected while animals are

Animals suffer, plants do not. What further explanation is necessary?

[Pangloss]

Most of the time, I use the term "sentience" as a shorthand for the capacity to feel pain and pleasure.

 

Oh ok, well in that case the "sentience" issue was just a semantics thing, and I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part.

 

 

Animals suffer, plants do not. What further explanation is necessary?

 

Alas, there is, in my opinion, insufficient objective, scientific evidence of this distinction between animals and plants. Obviously you disagree, and so we'll simply have to agree to disagree. I offer you the last word on the subject, with respect and recognition of your point of view.

 

For what it's worth, you make the case for your side better than anyone else I've discussed the subject with.

[-Demosthenes-]

I don't entirely agree. We generally treat mammals with more concern than we do fish or crustaceans for example.

Do we? We still eat mammals and experiment on them. And we enjoy movies that personify fish and crustaceans.

 

I'd have to agree with Skye, we don't really care about fish, arthropods, or other "ugly" animals. People tend to like the cute furry animals. No one ever mentions fishing, which I would think would be the most traumatic even for any animal. No one really cares, they're scaly, and ugly. But we can't eat cows or pigs?

 

I've caught and gutted a fish, but I couldn't stomach doing the same to a furry mammal.

...and reinforced by the fact that many people would see it as a horrible crime to stick a knife in the belly of a dog or try to perform operations on them without anesthetic.

Or destroyed by the fact that no one would care if you did that to a fish. OF course people would care if you did something like that to a dog' date=' they're cute and furry.

 

For someone who is a racist, it doesn't matter what the actual facts are black people, because if they believed that by the virtue of having white skin they are justified in giving little or no consideration to the interests of black people. Many racists believe that they are superior for being members of the white race and nothing more.

Unlike difference in race (where there might have a different shade of skin), there are real difference between Humans and other spices.

 

As a woman, Renee, you ought to be able to appreciate my criticism of the "biological differences" misconception.

Again, while a women is just a capable as a man, animals aren't. There are inherent difference between people and animals. You're trying to appeal to feminism and bring women to your side.

 

America was founded with slavery intact, but declaring that "all men were created equal". This hypocrisy is manifest, but our characterization of this as a "flaw" is colored by our modern perceptions of race, science, social context, and the simple fact that unity was not possible for the 13 colonies without slavery left intact. They didn't make a moral compromise. They made a moral sacrifice[/i'].

 

It was needed to get the constitution ratified, many of the constitutional framers were against slavery (some like Jefferson owned slaves, and wrote how it was evil, mostly later in life). It was a moral sacrifice, but many Northerners thought it could die a "natural death" with the clause that they got the Southern delegates to agree to: the 20 years Compromise, where the Atlantic Slave trade would stop in 1808 (20 years later). This was largely unenforced (under Jefferson), but slavery was dying. Slavery wasn't profitable any more with tobacco prices falling. Then in the early 1800's cotton prices boomed (thanks in part to Ely Whitney and the cotton gin) and slavery boomed also.

 

I'm not trying to defend the framers of the Constitution, but it was far more complicated than what people think, most people knew that slavery was dying, they put clauses in the constitution and planned for it's eventual demise. And it probably could have died quite easily if it weren't for the cotton boom.

 

(because, after all, human infants are not sentient but obviously matter morally)

Who has proven this?

Animals suffer, plants do not. What further explanation is necessary?

Who has proven this?

[AL]

IMM, I'm curious at what point you draw the line. Surely if animals are our moral equals, you'd extend the exact same moral protections you'd give to humans, no? Would you save a deer from a mountain lion? I'd say it would be morally negligent not to attempt to save a human who was assaulted by a mountain lion, but I'd probably do nothing to save the deer -- the justification for the latter being more ecological than moral. But if deer are our moral equals, then why not extend the same moral protection?

 

I think consistency is a good thing to have in any moral system, but I acknowledge that my moral interests will clash, and that at some point I have to give way for one over the other. This is implicit in even the most staunch animal-rights activist. Did you strain the last carrot you ate to ensure you didn't ingest any nematode worms? Do you boycott purified drinking water because zooplankton died during the purification process? You may think I'm nitpicking, but these are some of the extremes that a Jainist might go through to minimize animal suffering, and unless you do same, the Jainists have you beat for moral consistency.

 

That said, I do value the lives of animals and even plants. But we need to take other, non-moral factors into consideration: that there are heterotrophic life forms (including us) that destroy other lives in order to maintain their own, that the ecology of some animals essentially relies on them being exterminated in droves (particularly creatures like mice that follow an r-strategy of population growth), and the fact that humans are the only creatures that are capable of bettering the planet for all parties involved. All of these non-moral factors need to be taken into consideration before we simply decide animals are our moral equivalents.

 

A lemming left to its own devices will uselessly give its life to a bottom of a cliff -- if we can take the little critter and do beneficial scientific research with it, it will have given its life to something a bit more worthwhile.

[AL]

Further, the analogy you give with racism doesn't quite cut it for me. If there were real, tangible differences between blacks and whites (and not just something trivial like skin color or hair texture), then I would argue these differences do need to be taken into account when we decide how we're going to treat one group or the other. The reality is that such differences are miniscule at best, so we (or I, at least) will treat blacks and whites and any other race of people as moral equivalents.

[bascule]

Factually incorrect. Numerous primates, particularly chimps, have been shown to have "culture" (in the sense of behaviors typifying individual populations and transmitted by teaching rather than genes), and that cultural behaviors, memes, are transmitted.

 

Memes evolve. Chimpanzee cultural evolution is nonexistant (at least compared to the exponentially increasing rate at which human culture evolves)

 

I guess bottom line, you either see humans as superior to animals or you don't. The superior of humans to animals is something which is outright obvious to me given the exponentially increasing rate of our memetic/cultural evolution which is driven by our superior biology. But I guess some people don't see it the same way...

 

However, is it really fair to ask other people to die because you don't wish to see animals die?

 

What if killing 100,000 chimps will save an incalculable number (or for the sake of argument, millions/billions) of human lives as it saves generations from being beset by a particular disease?

 

I see leading a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle as something noble in trying to reduce animal suffering, and I certainly try to avoid eating mammals and other animals as much as possible. But opposing biomedical testing increases human suffering, and that's something to which I am diametrically opposed.

[Skye]

Oh my! Factory farms of the most miserable places on the planet, most people become vegetarians and vegans in the first place because the animals are treated so horribly. I think the amount an animal suffers being raised on a factory farm before becoming your meal at the dinner table is incomparable to the amount you will suffer for not being able to eat it.

I avoid buying from factory farms because I think it's a tough life for them, mainly the chickens. But I've lived in rural areas a fair bit of my life though and most of the animals don't suffer that much. I can live with it. I'd probably miss them even.

(And if its just the taste of your food that matters so much, then visit me sometime in the US and I will cook for you very delicious, colorful food that will make you forget about eating animals.)

But they say you are what you eat and I don't want to be a fruit. I want to be a sheep like everyone else.