+- kanji koohii FORUM (http://forum.koohii.com)
+-- Forum: Learning Japanese (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Off topic (http://forum.koohii.com/forum-13.html)
+--- Thread: Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ (/thread-4368.html)
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - thecite - 2010-06-24
Thora Wrote:I'm assuming that you already accept that humans have rights. If you don't accept that humans have rights, you might as well just leave society. Animals deserve rights for practically every reason humans have rights, almost every principal is applicable: they have the same needs, same basic desires, they wish to continue living.thecite Wrote:The only reason for denying these creatures rights is because they are not human, and that is not a moral argument, it is discrimination. This type of discrimination is commonly referred to as 'Speciesism.'Treating animals differently than humans is discrimination, but discrimination is not bad in itself until you make an argument that it's bad. That would require showing that animals ought to have the same rights as humans. That's a moral argument. (And this assumes humans have rights, which in turn comes down to moral argument, as Tzadeck mentions.) I suspect this is why more people can relate to the animal welfare approach rather than the animals rights approach.
In addition to this, most people already agree that it is morally wrong to inflict 'unnecessary suffering' on animals, this is the traditional welfarist approach.
Yet, exploiting animals for their flesh and by-products cannot be considered necessary in any sense in our society. Therefore, most people have contradictory views on how we ought to treat animals.
If you accept that an animal has the right to be butchered 'humanely', you are acknowledging that animal's interest in not experiencing pain.
If one acknowledges that an animal has an interest in not experiencing pain, it is contradictory to ignore the animal's interest in living by butchering it unnecessarily.
There is absolutely no moral difference between bashing your dog, and killing an animal for its flesh. Both are unnecessary acts. Both are undertaken for personal pleasure, not necessity.
Therefore, there are only two consistent arguments:
1. Humans have absolutely no moral obligation towards animals, and may treat them however they wish, ignoring any interests they may have.
2. Animals have interests just as we do, and we must therefore acknowledge them as part of the moral community.
Francione sums up this theory of animal rights far more succinctly:
http://vimeo.com/4808525
Watch that video, and then come back and tell me what arguments you have against it.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - thecite - 2010-06-24
IceCream Wrote:I also strongly suggest that you visit farms in your own area and check out what they are like for yourself. Although it's true that horrific farms really do exist, and definately should be stopped imo, there are many that are very humane (for your purposes, in terms of milk, eggs, etc). If you go to a local one, and check out the conditions, maybe you can feel a little more at ease. Certainly, there are good organic farms with tons of ethics certificates with nice farm shops in the area i live inI would be no less at ease whether the farm treated their animals 'humanely' or not.
While I certainly agree animal abuse is atrocious, it is the exploitation I oppose.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - cracky - 2010-06-24
thecite Wrote:I'm assuming that you already accept that humans have rights. If you don't accept that humans have rights, you might as well just leave society. Animals deserve rights for practically every reason humans have rights, almost every principal is applicable: they have the same needs, same basic desires, they wish to continue living.This claim, like almost every other claim you have made in this thread, is begging the question. You can't just say animals have the same needs and desires without backing it up in some way. This is not a belief commonly accepted, so it needs to be established before you can move on.
Here are some more examples:
thecite Wrote:A pig for example, is smarter than a 3 year old.
thecite Wrote:The ONLY reason we have for consuming these products is that we enjoy the taste,
thecite Wrote:The fact is, there are many animals that possess higher intelligence than a wide scope of mentally disabled individualsThere are plenty more, and they almost always are one of the linchpins of the argument.
thecite Wrote:Watch that video, and then come back and tell me what arguments you have against it.You also have told people countless times to go read this or watch that. Have you considered that perhaps the problem is in the way you've presented your argument?
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - thecite - 2010-06-24
cracky Wrote:This claim, like almost every other claim you have made in this thread, is begging the question. You can't jJust go and watch this video, I'll respond to arguments with the theory within it:
http://vimeo.com/4808525
No doubt, I should have just used Francione's theory right from the start, it's far simpler and far more convincing.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - thecite - 2010-06-24
IceCream Wrote:secondly, with this response you're contradicting a response you made earlier in the thread when you said it's the fact that humans have empathy and morality that seperates our eating meat from say, a lions.My point is that we do not, and should not, rely on every single person in our society being a moral, empathetic person. That is why we have laws, to make sure people abide to a minimum moral standard.
If you haven't watched it yet, please go and watch it: http://vimeo.com/4808525
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - Tzadeck - 2010-06-24
thecite Wrote:I'm assuming that you already accept that humans have rights. If you don't accept that humans have rights, you might as well just leave society. Animals deserve rights for practically every reason humans have rights, almost every principal is applicable: they have the same needs, same basic desires, they wish to continue living.Basically, your argument is...
In addition to this, most people already agree that it is morally wrong to inflict 'unnecessary suffering' on animals, this is the traditional welfarist approach.
Yet, exploiting animals for their flesh and by-products cannot be considered necessary in any sense in our society. Therefore, most people have contradictory views on how we ought to treat animals.
If you accept that an animal has the right to be butchered 'humanely', you are acknowledging that animal's interest in not experiencing pain.
If one acknowledges that an animal has an interest in not experiencing pain, it is contradictory to ignore the animal's interest in living by butchering it unnecessarily.
There is absolutely no moral difference between bashing your dog, and killing an animal for its flesh. Both are unnecessary acts. Both are undertaken for personal pleasure, not necessity.
Therefore, there are only two consistent arguments:
1. Humans have absolutely no moral obligation towards animals, and may treat them however they wish, ignoring any interests they may have.
2. Animals have interests just as we do, and we must therefore acknowledge them as part of the moral community.
Francione sums up this theory of animal rights far more succinctly:
http://vimeo.com/4808525
Watch that video, and then come back and tell me what arguments you have against it.
1)Humans have rights because they have certain needs and desires, and they want to go on living.
2)Animals have the sames needs, desires, and they want to go on living.
3)Therefore, animals should have the same rights.
4)Things which have the same rights should be treated humanely in the same ways.
5)Therefore, animals should be treated humanely as humans are.
I made a big post yesterday about how I think this style of ethical argument is a load of crap. Care to tell me your thoughts thecite?
(And, even if I didn't think that it was a load of crap, I would reject number 1)
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - thecite - 2010-06-24
Tzadeck Wrote:I made a big post yesterday about how I think this style of ethical argument is a load of crap. Care to tell me your thoughts thecite?Before I continue, I'd kindly request you watch the following video: http://vimeo.com/4808525
I would rather address responses to the theory laid down in that video, rather than the disjointed arguments I have given throughout this thread.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - Tzadeck - 2010-06-24
Sorry, 56k, I can't watch videos.
Edit: I have, however, read many a professionally-written paper on animals rights.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - thecite - 2010-06-24
Tzadeck Wrote:Sorry, 56k, I can't watch videos.That's a shame.
The video is mostly text, here's someone's brief write up of it, keep in mind that this is incomplete and not all the content from the video is included:
"We all agree it is morally wrong to inflict "unnecessary" suffering on nonhuman animals.
A prohibition on "unnecessary" suffering must mean, at the very least, that it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals for reasons of pleasure, amusement, or convenience.
But the overwhelming amount of suffering and death that we inflict on nonhumans can be justified only by pleasure, amusement or convenience.
[A couple of slides are missing here]
"Our only justification for the pain, suffering, and death inflicted on these billions of nonhumans is that we enjoy the taste of meat and dairy products. And if we really do take seriously that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on nonhumans, our enjoyment in eating animal products cannot be a morally acceptable justification. Our only use of animals that is not transparently trivial is the use of animals in experiments intended to find cures for serious human illnesses. But even in this context, there are serious questions about the necessity of animal use. Because of the biological differences between humans and other animals, there is always a problem extrapolating the results of animal experiments to humans. The data produced by animal use are often unreliable. For example, results from toxicity tests using animals can vary dramatically depending on the method that is used. Considerable empirical evidence indicates that, in many instances, reliance on animal models in experiments has actually been counterproductive. For example, the failure to create an animal model of lung cancer led researchers to ignore evidence of a strong correlation of smoking and lung cancer in humans.”
Moral Schizophrenia
“We kill billions of nonhumans every year for reasons that cannot plausibly be considered as “necessary” even though we maintain that we accept that it is wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering on animals. When it comes to other animals, we humans exhibit what can best be described as moral schizophrenia. We say one thing about how animals should be treated, and we turn right around and do another.”
“If we recognized that all sentient beings had a basic, moral right not to be treated as property and that we had a moral duty to stop treating sentient beings as resources, we would stop bringing domestic animals into existence for our use. Recognizing “animal rights” does not mean letting all domestic animals run free in the streets. It means caring for those whom we have caused to come into existence. And not bringing anymore into existence to use for food, clothing, entertainment, or experiments. If we took the interests of animals seriously, we would stop bringing domestic animals into existence. There is no reason-other than our pleasure, amusement, or convenience-to eat animal meat or dairy, wear animals, hunt animals, or use animals in entertainment.”
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - nadiatims - 2010-06-24
I really believe there will come a time when eating meat not grown in labs will just not be economically viable anymore.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - captal - 2010-06-24
I always liked Maddox's response: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill
Maddox Wrote:every year millions of animals are killed by wheat and soy bean combines during harvesting season (source). Oh yeah, go on and on for hours about how all of us meat eaters are going to hell for having a steak, but conveniently ignore the fact that each year millions of mice, rabbits, snakes, skunks, possums, squirrels, gophers and rats are ruthlessly murdered as a direct result of YOUR dieting habits. What's that? I'm sorry, I don't hear any more elitist banter from you pompous cocks. Could it be because your shit has been RUINED?
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - thecite - 2010-06-24
captal Wrote:I always liked Maddox's response: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grillThere's a big difference between animals being indirectly and directly killed. It's the difference between a murderer and someone being hit by a car.
Maddox Wrote:every year millions of animals are killed by wheat and soy bean combines during harvesting season (source). Oh yeah, go on and on for hours about how all of us meat eaters are going to hell for having a steak, but conveniently ignore the fact that each year millions of mice, rabbits, snakes, skunks, possums, squirrels, gophers and rats are ruthlessly murdered as a direct result of YOUR dieting habits. What's that? I'm sorry, I don't hear any more elitist banter from you pompous cocks. Could it be because your shit has been RUINED?
Especially when the option to consume those plant products was made with the intention of avoiding animal death as much as possible, in the first place.
Veganism is not, and never has been, about being perfect. It is an attempt to remove animal exploitation from one's life as much as possible.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - Tzadeck - 2010-06-24
Okay, I read it. It's the exact type of ethical argument I was criticizing.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - thecite - 2010-06-24
Tzadeck Wrote:Okay, I read it. It's the exact type of ethical argument I was criticizing.What animal rights argument style do you find most convincing then? I find Singer's far less convincing than Francione's. Reagan's style is fairly convincing, however quite verbose.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - captal - 2010-06-24
thecite Wrote:There's a big difference between animals being indirectly and directly killed. It's the difference between a murderer and someone being hit by a car.This is right below the paragraph I just posted:
Especially when the option to consume those plant products was made with the intention of avoiding animal death as much as possible, in the first place.
Veganism is not, and never has been, about being perfect. It is an attempt to remove animal exploitation from one's life as much as possible.
Maddox Wrote:That's right: the gloves have come off. The vegetarian response to this embarrassing fact is "well, at least we're not killing intentionally." So let me get this straight; not only are animals ruthlessly being murdered as a direct result of your diet, but you're not even using the meat of the animals YOU kill? At least we're eating the animals we kill (and although we also contribute to the slaughter of animals during grain harvesting, keep in mind that we're not the ones with a moral qualm about it), not just leaving them to rot in a field somewhere. That makes you just as morally repugnant than any meat-eater any day. Not only that, but you're killing free-roaming animals, not animals that were raised for feed. Their bodies get mangled in the combine's machinery, bones crushed, and you have the audacity to point fingers at the meat industry for humanely punching a spike through a cow's neck? If you think that tofu burgers come at no cost to animals or the environment, guess again.
To even suggest that your meal is some how "guiltless" is absurd. The defense "at least we're not killing intentionally" is bullshit anyway. How is it not intentional if you KNOW that millions of animals die every year in combines during harvest? You expect me to believe that you somehow unintentionally pay money to buy products that support farmers that use combines to harvest their fields? Even if it was somehow unintentional, so what? That suddenly makes you innocent? I guess we should let drunk drivers off the hook too since they don't kill intentionally either, right? There's no way out of this one. The only option left for you dipshits is to buy some land, plant and pick your own crops. Impractical? Yeah, well, so is your stupid diet.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - thecite - 2010-06-24
captal Wrote:This is right below the paragraph I just posted:I know, they're arguments every vegan has heard a thousand times.
I've chosen to be part of society, and that means I have to buy food that may have animals indirectly killed in the process. You could just as easily criticise me for living in a house, as there were probably insects killed in the construction process. Or driving a car (even though I rarely drive and don't own a car), as animals and insects are often killed on roads, the tar used on roads also is not vegan.
Unless I become a recluse separated from all of society, of which I have no intention, I have to accept that human society is going to have an impact on animals in one way or another.
I have personally made the best effort possible to eliminate animal exploitation from my life by going Vegan, and that's far more than doing nothing at all.
To sit back and say that trying your absolute best to do as much as good as you can, is equally defencible as doing absolutely nothing, is ridiculous.
As I said, veganism is not about being perfect, it is a commitment to remove animal exploitation from one's life as much as possible.
In a vegan society, we could work towards more ethical farming practices, however that is impossible in today's society.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - captal - 2010-06-24
Before you were saying something about beating someone before raping them and just trying to go for no beating before rape. How is your stance different? You're saying that some death is ok, because you "have to accept it."
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - Jarvik7 - 2010-06-24
thecite Wrote:I'm assuming that you already accept that humans have rights. If you don't accept that humans have rights, you might as well just leave society. Animals deserve rights for practically every reason humans have rights, almost every principal is applicable: they have the same needs, same basic desires, they wish to continue living.One cannot accept that humans have rights. One can believe that they do. One could argue the opposite in that universal human rights is actually bad for society in the grand scheme as it allows weak genes (those who cannot defend their own freedoms) to propagate. Allowing women the right to chose their mates and when to reproduce reduces overall birthrates, which is bad for society. Allowing animals rights means it eliminates a food source, which endangers society. Of course modern science and technology has caused the earth to be overpopulated, which has thrown the ecosystem out of balance and effectively ended human evolution. (Humans were much healthier as a species thousands of years ago, though we were more likely to die young it didn't matter as your genes were already passed on. Now medicine can extend just about anyone's life long enough to reproduce). It may make sense to dole out rights where there were none before, but that doesn't mean it's in our genetic programming. In other words, being a vegan is fundamentally against human nature, even though it might be a good idea in the current world.
Humans do not have rights as some law of physics. One cannot scientifically prove that humans have rights. Humans have rights because the majority of humans decide at the present that humans have rights. It has not been this way in most of the world for most of human civilization, and it's still not a universal truth now. In some places only certain groups of humans have rights. It's not that they are actively denying those groups rights, but in their belief system they do not have those rights in the first place (right of women to vote or drive a car etc). Even among "enlightened" people, the enumerated rights differ greatly. In the same manner, morality is entirely defined by the people practicing it.
Now, I am not saying that I don't believe in human rights, but I am posting this to point out that your logic is flawed. Pretty much everything that you have stated is your opinion based on your value system. Many people do not share your value system, so any argument you make based on that value system will fall on deaf ears. Imagine trying to convert someone to your religion with this argument:
A: You should believe in Zeus.
B: No thanks.
A: You just don't realize just how Zeusy he is!
A: I know because Zeus proved it by saying he's very Zeusy in this book.
oh wait, many people do use that argument :O
Even if you argue from a position of animal welfare instead of animal rights (I personally do not believe in animal rights, though I do believe in welfare), some people will still ignore your argument wholesale because they don't believe in animal welfare. Ex: I've read that in Korea, dog meat is more desirable if the animal suffers when it is killed rather than when it is killed humanely, so the slaughter method is to be beaten to death (though this may have been vegan propaganda). This may be superstition or it may have factual basis in the adrenaline or other factors involved in a brutal death.
Even if animals are sentient/conscious, why does that matter? If you convince someone that global warming is happening but they still don't care as they'll be long dead by the time it's a problem, what argument will you fall back on? People are selfish because life is by definition selfish. There is no such thing as true selflessness unless it's due to mental impairment (like suicide).情けは人のためならず
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - Jarvik7 - 2010-06-24
I don't think the theory is so much outdated as it is extended to include society. Success of the society in which your offspring continue in also ensures success of your genes. Cows being happy does not ensure the success of your genes especially when it eliminates a good food source.
You said it yourself. advantage. Real altruism has no advantage to the practitioner, otherwise it's not truly selfless. It can potentially exist, but only where it doesn't pose any disadvantage to the practicing lifeform and came along with some other mutation that was successful.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - thecite - 2010-06-24
captal Wrote:Before you were saying something about beating someone before raping them and just trying to go for no beating before rape. How is your stance different? You're saying that some death is ok, because you "have to accept it."The context of that particular quote was completely different, but at any rate;
to say there is no difference between direct exploitation, and indirect exploitation which was chosen with the benefit of animals in the first place, is ignorant. For most people, Veganism is the biggest sacrifice they can make while continuing to function in society.
I'm saying that I'm not expecting people to go leaving their homes and move into the wilderness in order to express their moral standpoints. Not only is that a ridiculous expectation of people, but we want a vegan society, not a vegan cult.
Removing all deliberate and intentional exploitation from our lives is the single most effective action that almost everyone can take. Veganism is certainly not the most we can do to help animals, it is the bare minimum. There is always something more we can do.
It is a fact that our society will always indirectly affect sentient creatures negatively in one way or another, what is important is that as a society we work together and minimise our impact as much as possible.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - Jarvik7 - 2010-06-24
Quote:Removing all deliberate and intentional exploitation from our lives is the single most effective action that almost everyone can take. Veganism is certainly not the most we can do to help animals, it is the bare minimum. There is always something more we can do.Effective at accomplishing what? Why is making animals happy important?
It is a fact that our society will always indirectly affect sentient creatures negatively in one way or another, what is important is that as a society we work together and minimise our impact as much as possible.
This is what the whole thread comes down to.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - Tzadeck - 2010-06-24
Jarvik7 Wrote:People are selfish because life is by definition selfish. There is no such thing as true selflessness unless it's due to mental impairment (like suicide).情けは人のためならずI thought that this was in some sense inaccurate. Replicators are selfish, lifeforms as a whole aren't necessarily. It's completely possible for genes that produce altruism to be successful in the gene pool.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - Jarvik7 - 2010-06-24
They would only be successful if they posed no disadvantage, or the advantage (of behaviour that evolved with the altruism) outweighed the disadvantage. Direct advantage from altruism is not altruism.
Do either of you have examples of real altruism (consequences of the act leave the animal in a neutral or worse state) in the animal kingdom?
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - thecite - 2010-06-24
Jarvik7 Wrote:Veganism is the single most effective action anyone can take in rejecting animal exploitation, and moving our society towards animal rights.Quote:Removing all deliberate and intentional exploitation from our lives is the single most effective action that almost everyone can take. Veganism is certainly not the most we can do to help animals, it is the bare minimum. There is always something more we can do.Effective at accomplishing what? Why is making animals happy important?
It is a fact that our society will always indirectly affect sentient creatures negatively in one way or another, what is important is that as a society we work together and minimise our impact as much as possible.
This is what the whole thread comes down to.
It is important as it is the morally correct thing to do. It is not that it is important to us it's that fact that it's important to them. Of course, there are environmental and health benefits as well; but primarily, it is important as it is the morally right thing to do.
Jarvik, please watch the video: http://vimeo.com/4808525
Then tell me how you feel that animal welfare is a justifiable and logical standpoint.
Ｗｈａｌｅ ｗａｒｓ - Tzadeck - 2010-06-24
Jarvik7 Wrote:They would only be successful if they posed no disadvantage, or the advantage (of behaviour that evolved with the altruism) outweighed the disadvantage. Direct advantage from altruism is not altruism.You're forgetting about genetic mis-firings. For example, genes that tell you to help people in your in-group can be successful in the gene pool quite easily. Let's say there is a gene that does just that. We don't really have to say specifically what it does, but in some sense you devote resources to help people in your in-group. Now, genes spread by reproduction, and when you have children they have the gene. Because of that they help you, and you help them, and overall your chances of survival is higher. Once most of your entire clan has such a gene, your survival chances are boosted even more because when everyone is helping each other your chances to survive are much higher. Of course, there could be people who do not have the gene taking advantage of the situation because they themselves are not helping. However, this can easily be remedied by another series of genes which differentiate between people who are helping and who are not.
Do either of you have examples of real altruism (consequences of the act leave the animal in a neutral or worse state) in the animal kingdom?
Now, we have mis-firings in evolution all the time. When we enjoy sex with birth control, it's essentially a mis-firing. We're devoting resources to something that doesn't actually spread our genes. In the same way, genes that evolve among clans which favor some altruism have no real way to distinguish whether or not someone is in-group, or whether or not in a modern situation there is a genetic benefit. The genes won't disappear just because they're not being used, because they're not really hurting either.
Thus, we have genes that are selfish, but they produce altruism which extends to cases which are not necessarily beneficially to the organism as a whole.
There are actually academic works that talk about this, this is a (probably slightly incorrect) watered down version that I'm writing while very tired.