lagwagon555 Wrote:It seems to be impossible to not contradict yourself if you eat animals or benefit from them in any way.

I think someone can, so here's how it can be done:

There is no such thing as animals ethics or rights since animals are biological machines. The first piece of evidence that supports this is that we assume animals behave instinctively. As a result, we never hold animals accountable for their actions. If your dog urinates on the floor of your home, you don't accuse it of choosing to pee on your floor. On the other hand, if a guest in your home decides to relieve herself on your floor, you will hold that person responsible for her actions. Thus, slaughtering an animal for meat is comparable to dismantling a robot for parts. The only difference is that one is mechanized by instincts whereas the other is mechanized by programming.

However, whether animals are entirely instinctual or if they are capable of going beyond instincts is debatable. It's possible that they are capable of going beyond their instincts but we are just simple unaware of it. Nevertheless, the burden of proof lies on those who claim animals are conscious, free-agents. Showing that animals are capable of sensory input is not enough. Robots are capable of code input, but no one argues that robots are conscious. What makes the suffering of an animal more real than the scripting error of a computer?

In fact, the hypocrites are those who believe that animals can suffer but never hold them responsible for their actions. Consciousness entails suffering, and free choice is inherent to consciousness. No one would claim a robot is conscious unless it is capable of free choice. Therefore, if an animal can suffer, then it is responsible for its actions.

The above arguments dismiss the suffering of animals, their rights, and any ethics involving their treatment. However, they fail to address ethical issues involving the environmental impact of eating animals or benefiting from them. While raising and slaughtering animals is not an injustice to animals, it might still be an injustice to humans who must live in an environment that is affected by farming. This possibility and it's ethical implications will be investigated in next paragraph.

Imagine a worst case scenario. Assume that animal farming will lead to the complete annihilation of all life on Earth in 50 years. Furthermore, if animal farming were to be entirely halted, life on Earth may be able survive another 30 billion years. Despite the contrast between the two options, 50 years versus 30 billion years, there is still one inevitable outcome: the ultimate destruction of the Earth. The time-frame is different but the result is the same: ultimate destruction. Even if halting animal production allows enough time for interstellar travel to develop, there would still be the threat of the end of the universe. Again, the time-frame differs but the result remains the same: ultimate destruction. In that case, what does it matter if we choose or choose not to eat or benefit from animals? If the universe is heading towards complete destruction, then we should enjoy what we have while it's still around. Nothing we can do can stop the impending doom; we can only stall it. If stalling it requires us to make sacrifices at the expense of our enjoyment, then stalling the inevitable fate of the universe is even worse than allowing it to happen sooner. Thus, we should enjoy eating and benefiting from animals because there's nothing unethical about it.

Note: I don't really care to join the omnivore vs. herbivore debate. I just wanted to challenge the claim of impossibility made in the post that I quoted.

Think of the bacteria.

Thanks, vileru, nothing like a good philosophical parody.

You might appreciate Simone Weil's line....something along the lines of "only in our imagination is there no contradiction."

[ファブリス]

Admin: Please create a separate "vegetarianism" topic to continue that discussion. This thread is about "environmentalists chasing japanese whaling fleet".

Blahah Wrote:Thecite I used to think similarly to the way you do, but it is a wholly impractical way to be. By being bitter about the way humanity is, you will only make yourself unhappier. If you arrange your priorities so that you find a balance between what you think is morally worthwhile and what is likely to achieve results, you'll be on a rewarding path. This is a good reason for not letting animal cruelty and rights consume your thoughts.

Sorry, I remembered I commented on this post so many months ago, and thought I'd come back and take a look.

I agree that I should I find more constructive ways to work towards my goal of an exploitation free world. I understand that the reason most people eat meat/animal products is because they are simply ignorant, and the result of their society and way they were raised. I was once the same.

By the far the most effective way to work towards a vegan society is through societal change. If we can change laws and further vegan education, society will change itself.

Tobberoth Wrote:Except, you know, the fact that meat is the best food. I'm willing to bet that 50% of the people who have been vegans/vegetarians for 1-2 years would give it up if they ate a good meal with meat. So yeah, it takes more space and water, but good things are expensive, you get what you pay for.

And in case you're wondering, yes, I DO support eating dog and cat. I even have a pet dog myself. Who cares, it's not like I'm going to eat MY dog. You can eat dogs in many parts of the world, who am I to say it's wrong just because I happen to own a dog?

Not all meat-eaters are hypocrites.

I don't wish to insult, but that comment really does not reflect you in the greatest light.
Do you really think I became vegan because I was fed up with the taste of meat and other animal products? Do you really think I stopped using wool, leather and silk because I wasn't satisfied with the texture?

No, meat tastes great and wool is a very satisfying fabric.

When I became vegan, I chose morality over my own personal pleasure and convenience.
Yes, I eat fake meats, because they taste good and don't come at the expense of someone else's misery and exploitation.

You'd have to kill me before I willingly consume animal products, and that's not an overstatement.

I find it quite disturbing that you have no problem with eating cat and dog.

Inflammatory comment of the day:
Who are you to say that it's wrong to consume infants and the mentally disabled, even though your society condemns it? I mean, they're far dumber than your average cat and dog.

vileru Wrote:However, whether animals are entirely instinctual or if they are capable of going beyond instincts is debatable. It's possible that they are capable of going beyond their instincts but we are just simple unaware of it. Nevertheless, the burden of proof lies on those who claim animals are conscious, free-agents. Showing that animals are capable of sensory input is not enough. Robots are capable of code input, but no one argues that robots are conscious. What makes the suffering of an animal more real than the scripting error of a computer?

I'm not sure if that was intended to be a joke or not. Anyone who has ever owned a pet could tell you that animals have varying moods, emotions and personalities. If animals aren't conscious, it could just as easily be said that human infants and the mentally disabled aren't either, as their IQ is generally lower than many animals in the animal kingdom. A pig for example, is smarter than a 3 year old. Does anyone argue that toddlers therefore 'aren't conscious' - I'm yet to hear someone make such a ridiculous claim.

The mentally disabled are far stupider than cats and dogs?

Did you actually mean to say that?

Actually, there doesn't really seem to be much ethical difference in eating an animal as opposed to a severely mentally disabled person, in my reasoning. We eat animals because they are not intelligent enough to beg us not to. So it is easy to rationalize it in our minds. If cows spoke English, would we really eat hamburgers? Well, maybe if they spoke French it would be OK.

wow. that was pretty inflammatory.

[Katsuo]

bodhisamaya Wrote:We eat animals because they are not intelligent enough to beg us not to. So it is easy to rationalize it in our minds. If cows spoke English, would we really eat hamburgers?

From "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe", the cow that wants to be eaten.

Jarvik7 Wrote:The mentally disabled are far stupider than cats and dogs?

Did you actually mean to say that?

I meant to convey that in many cases, severely mentally disabled individuals have an IQ lower than that of your average cat or dog.

I agree the wording made it sound pretty horrible by generalising all mentally disabled individuals, which was not my intention.

My point was that despite their low IQ and differences, it is accepted in our society that those people deserve our respect as equals, and have the same rights that we cherish.

bodhisamaya Wrote:Actually, there doesn't really seem to be much ethical difference in eating an animal as opposed to a severely mentally disabled person, in my reasoning. We eat animals because they are not intelligent enough to beg us not to. So it is easy to rationalize it in our minds. If cows spoke English, would we really eat hamburgers? Well, maybe if they spoke French it would be OK.

That was the point I was trying to convey with the comment. There is no logical reason not to eat a baby or severly mentally disabled person, if it is perfectly acceptable to eat a pig or cow or cat or dog for the same reason.

thecite Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:The mentally disabled are far stupider than cats and dogs?

Did you actually mean to say that?

I meant to convey that in many cases, severely mentally disabled individuals have an IQ lower than that of your average cat or dog.

I agree the wording made it sound pretty horrible by generalising all mentally disabled individuals, which was not my intention.

My point was that despite their low IQ and differences, it is accepted in our society that those people deserve our respect as equals, and have the same rights that we cherish.

1) IQ test scores are meaningless and do not reflect actual intelligence levels
2) You cannot administer an IQ test to a dog anyways
3) An average disabled person is surely smarter than an average dog. You can't just cherry pick the most extremely handicapped borderline comatose disabled person and compare them to Lassie. There are retarded dogs too.
4) Intelligence alone does not equal sentience anyways, at least by current definitions
5) Morality isn't a law of nature, it is cultural
6) Humans are just animals in the food chain. Animals eat us when given the chance. In the strictest sense the only thing that would be immoral is killing members of your own in-group for food during a time of non-famine, since it weakens your tribe (social efficacy). Since humans are no longer tribal (though much tribal behaviour still remains), one could consider the entire human race as the in-group. It would be perfectly moral to kill the disabled (and elderly) in the past as they weakened your group, but in modern times they do not pose a significant burden compared to their killing (emotional stress).

Jarvik7 Wrote:1) IQ test scores are meaningless and do not reflect actual intelligence levels
2) You cannot administer an IQ test to a dog anyways
3) An average disabled person is surely smarter than an average dog. You can't just cherry pick the most extremely handicapped borderline comatose disabled person and compare them to Lassie. There are retarded dogs too.
4) Intelligence alone does not equal sentience anyways, at least by current definitions
5) Morality isn't a law of nature, it is cultural
6) Humans are just animals in the food chain. Animals eat us when given the chance. In the strictest sense the only thing that would be immoral is killing members of your own in-group for food (during a time of non-famine), since it weakens your tribe (social efficacy). Since humans are no longer tribal, one could consider the entire human race as the in-group. It would be perfectly moral to kill the disabled (and elderly) in the past as they weakened your group, but in modern times they do not pose a significant burden compared to their killing (emotional stress).

I'm not a zoologist or scientist and don't want to get into ridiculous specifics.
The fact is, there are many animals that possess higher intelligence than a wide scope of mentally disabled individuals, yet no one considers it acceptable to consume or exploit these people.

Despite not being a law of nature, our society bases itself on morality. We pride ourselves on being moral beings. I don't know about you, but I tend to believe that justice, fairness and compassion are the three most admirable aspects of human kind. Unsurprisingly, non-vegans therefore get very insecure when one mentions that the act they partake in is immoral.
Logical morality reaches any human in any culture. This is so obvious I assume it no needs no proof, but I'll give some anyway. Most humans can acknowledge that murder and rape is wrong. Most of the world now acknowledges that slavery is wrong as well.
Despite what any culture preaches, upon logical examination, most people can acknowledge that these acts are wrong no matter what circumstance.
Animal rights is a moral philosophy that people from every culture around the world are beginning to acknowledge, because it not only appeals to the emotional side of humanity (compassion), but also makes logical sense.

We live in a moral society that has the power to either treat non-human sentient beings with compassion or with utter contempt. We do not live in the wild, we are not cave men, we are an intelligent modern society that bases ourselves on morality.

Jarvik7 Wrote:6) Humans are just animals in the food chain. Animals eat us when given the chance. In the strictest sense the only thing that would be immoral is killing members of your own in-group for food during a time of non-famine, since it weakens your tribe (social efficacy). Since humans are no longer tribal (though much tribal behaviour still remains), one could consider the entire human race as the in-group. It would be perfectly moral to kill the disabled (and elderly) in the past as they weakened your group, but in modern times they do not pose a significant burden compared to their killing (emotional stress).

I couldn't have put it any better myself.

There are many different definitions of sentience in the field of animal rights, but I consider sentience to be the following.

When a creature is capable of feeling and pain and emotion, and is aware that it is the self feeling pain, and not merely a knee-jerk reaction.

This definition therefore places the limit of a sentient creature at around a crab or prawn. Whether insects and oysters are sentient is still heavily under debate. Vegans tend to give insects the benefit of the doubt at any rate.

liosama Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:6) Humans are just animals in the food chain. Animals eat us when given the chance. In the strictest sense the only thing that would be immoral is killing members of your own in-group for food during a time of non-famine, since it weakens your tribe (social efficacy). Since humans are no longer tribal (though much tribal behaviour still remains), one could consider the entire human race as the in-group. It would be perfectly moral to kill the disabled (and elderly) in the past as they weakened your group, but in modern times they do not pose a significant burden compared to their killing (emotional stress).

I couldn't have put it any better myself.

That is in extremely odd theory of ethics with no relevance to the modern field of morality.
By that definition, it would be perfectly acceptable to kill any human who posed no use to the greater population, and imposed no emotional burden on anyone by their absence.
Such an idea sounds ludicrous in today's society.

Most people already feel a strong moral obligation towards animals, and see it as disgusting to 'abuse' them. This is the concept that 'Animal welfare' is premised on; it's alright to exploit animals, as long as it's 'humane'. Animal rights simply sees beyond this hypocrisy and argues that all unnecessary exploitation is immoral as all sentient beings are equal, possessing the same interests.

If you have senses, you are a sentient being by definition.
I don't know if eating meat is immoral or not. Though, I am not capable of killing an animal or human even if my life were to depend on it, so I can't justify paying someone else to do it.

The only thing I have come to the conclusion that separates humans from and makes our lives more precious than an animal life is our ability to feel empathy. That also would mean the less of that quality one has, the less human one would be. Much of the human race would be more animal than human by that standard. The motto in the animal world is, "Eat who you meet." Rarely does an animal in the wild die of old age. You can't sink your teeth into a living being if you feel empathy for it.

Humans I think are not really built for killing though anyways. We don't have claws or fangs or poison. We have a soft skin rather than an external skeleton. It is impossible not to kill though. Farming, even through organic methods kills insects.

bodhisamaya Wrote:If you have senses, you are a sentient being by definition.
I don't know if eating meat is immoral or not. Though, I am not capable of killing an animal or human even if my life were to depend on it, so I can't justify paying someone else to do it.

The only thing I have come to the conclusion that separates humans from and makes our lives more precious than an animal life is our ability to feel empathy. That also would mean the less of that quality one has, the less human one would be. Much of the human race would be more animal than human by that standard.
The motto in the animal world is, "Eat who you meet." Rarely does an animal in the wild die of old age. You can't sink your teeth into a living being if you feel empathy for it.

Humans I think are not really built for killing though anyways I think. We don't have claws or fangs or poison. We have a soft skin rather than an external skeleton. It is impossible not to kill though. Farming, even through organic method kills insects.

By definition, yes. However the word takes on a different meaning in animal rights.
Although oysters have 'senses', if all it can produce is a knee-jerk reaction to pain, with no awareness, it's pretty difficult to imagine why it deserves any moral consideration.

I disagree that humans are better or worse than other sentient creatures, I believe we are morally equal.
Our ability to treat other sentient beings with compassion and love certainly is the most admirable quality we possess.

There will always be some level of moral injustice occurring in human society, what is important is that we do our best to abolish as much as possible.

So that means every animal that kills and eats other animals for survival are all immoral. Lions, tigers, and all other carnivores are immoral creatures.

Why does a lion get to eat a zebra while I can't eat some lamb?


ahh i'll write up a better response later.. just give me till after thursday

liosama Wrote:So that means every animal that kills and eats other animals for survival are all immoral. Lions, tigers, and all other carnivores are immoral creatures.

Why does a lion get to eat a zebra while I can't eat some lamb?


ahh i'll write up a better response later.. just give me till after thursday

Perhaps read an animal rights book in the mean time as well (to save me repeating all the same arguments), Gary Francione and Tom Reagan present some pretty extensive philosophies.

Morality is a human concept. We are the only creatures that have the intelligence to comprehend morality, and decide that it matters. A baby does not need to understand morality for us to treat it morally. We do so because WE know it is right.
Firstly we need to establish that in today's modern society, no human being needs to partake in animal exploitation to live healthily, let alone survive. We can all live a vegan lifestyle, and we partake only in animal products because we enjoy the taste.

While it would be nice if the Lion and the Zebra got along happily, the Lion knows only that it needs to care for its cubs and itself, and must kill to survive. It knows nothing of 'morality', it knows only survival.

You on the other hand, can fully understand the concept of morality, and can easily choose to live a life free from exploitation.

====Note: I've realised that this comment sounds as if it's written in a very arrogant, pretentious tone. I apologise, that was not how it was intended to be read.
I recommended reading the books as they truly would provide a far more succinct and thorough case for animal rights than what I can regurgitate.

Why must we all live a specifically vegan lifestyle? Is there something wrong with eating eggs, drinking milk and eating ice cream? Nothing has died to provide those things. (I guess you could argue for the eggs and egg products, but what about milk?)

Fish seem pretty dumb to me, and they're healthy, and tasty- do fish really have more than a knee-jerk reaction to pain?

I stay away from the morality angle when it comes to vegetarianism. If you are a farmer and you raise a pig or cow with love and kindness its whole life, giving it a far superior and longer life than what it would have had in the wild, then kill it for meat humanely, perhaps an instantaneous death by bullet to the head, would that be immoral? It is all such a tricky issue. I am vegetarian, but all (three previous) of my wives ate meat and all three of my children eat meat. It is an individual choice as far as I am concerned. There are benefits to the environment and to one's own health by restricting meat intake. I also think a subtle emotional one as well. Beyond that advise, I don't encourage anyone one way or the other.

captal Wrote:Why must we all live a specifically vegan lifestyle? Is there something wrong with eating eggs, drinking milk and eating ice cream? Nothing has died to provide those things. (I guess you could argue for the eggs and egg products, but what about milk?)

Fish seem pretty dumb to me, and they're healthy, and tasty- do fish really have more than a knee-jerk reaction to pain?

Fish are vertebrate animals, they're most certainly sentient. It was often thought up until recently that invertebtrate animals such as crabs were not sentient, but more and more tests have come out refuting this.

In general, any process in which an animal is deliberately bred by a human to serve their greedy self interests is animal exploitation, i.e. slavery. Animal rights rejects all animal exploitation. That is the baseline for human rights in our society, and it is the base for animal rights: every sentient creature has the right not to be exploited.

As for eggs, milk and other animal products, there are variety of problems in addition to that principle:
First and foremost, most eggs and milk come from factory farms, which exposes animals to some of the most gruesome, horrific conditions imaginable.

Secondly, even on free range farms, the production of eggs and milk necessarily results in the direct killing of chickens and cows.
For eggs, when roosters are born, they're generally killed straight away as they're of no use to the egg industry. In addition, when a chicken's egg count starts dropping after about 1 - 2 years, it's no longer economically beneficial to continue using the chicken, so its sent to the slaughterhouse and new chickens replace it.

For milk: this may suprise you (it suprised me), but cows are not magical milk machines. They do not spontaneously produce milk. Cows, like every other mammal, only produce milk when they are pregnant. Just like in humans. The milk is baby formula, it's intended for the baby calf when it's born. Therefore, in order to produce milk, the cows must constantly be kept pregnant. When the baby calf is eventually born, it is generally ripped away from birth, and either killed instantly, or used to produce veal.
Separating a newborn calf from its mother obviously causes extreme emotional stress to the mother.

In order to produce veal, baby calf meat, a baby calf fresh from birth is chained to a pole so tightly that it cannot even turn around, for up to 40 days until it is killed. This way, muscle does not develop and the resulting flesh is extremely tender.

Cows are milked most of the day, and fed antibiotics to increase milk production. They lead a miserable life chained up, often in filthy conditions. The average lifespan of a regular cow is 20 years. The average lifespan of a dairy cow is 4 years. After 4 years, the dairy cow generally collapses from exhaustion, and is dragged off to the slaughterhouse to make fast food meat or something else.

Leather: leather is skin from an animal, generally a cow. Leather comes from completely different cows than those that are used for food. Most leather comes from India, where cows are sold by poor families with the promise they'll live out a happy life on a farm. Instead, they're marched on a thousand mile death march, to parts of India where it is legal to slaughter cows. Words cannot convey how horrific this process is, I strongly encourage you to watch the movie 'Earthlings' which depicts the process.

Wool: When a sheep starts to produce less wool, it's off to the slaughterhouse. Sheep are bred only for their economic value, their wool and flesh.

Silk: Silk worms are killed to produce silk, and Veganism gives insects the benefit of the doubt as to whether they are sentient. The same goes for honey.

If I could ask one thing of you, I sincerely implore you to watch the movie 'Earthlings', it will open your eyes to the barbarity of animal industries (it's narrated by Joaquin Phoenix!):
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5346640/...%5D___12_l